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

The current schedule will include:

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

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

Attorney Sarah Liljefelt is honored to be serving as the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association’s Water Resources Committee Chair. She started this role at the beginning of 2020. Sarah has been an OCA member for many years. She is also very involved with the Oregon CattleWomen. With the Oregon CattleWomen, she served as a former Vice President and is the current Legislative Committee Chair.

In her new role, Sarah is using her water law expertise to represent OCA’s members’ interests alongside staff and leadership. She is closely following the Governor’s proposed 100 Year Water Vision to ensure agriculture infrastructure is adequately included. This is necessary to support a resilient agricultural sector and food and fiber supply in the future. She also drafted comments to proposed agency actions involving water quality. That effort includes comments to the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s proposed changes to Water Quality Area Management Plans. Similarly, she drafted comments to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s draft 2018-2020 Integrated Report.

As related to water litigation and legislation, Sarah is providing recommendations to OCA regarding involvement in current water resources cases that may impact Oregon water users for many years to come. She also prepared written testimony and appeared at the State Legislature in Salem to testify on water bills that would negatively impact Oregon water users. For a summary of the water bills of concern in the 2020 short session of the Legislature, see OCA’s article here.

Sarah is committed to representing the interests of water users in the West. She is excited to use her knowledge and experience to help OCA’s members navigate the many water resources challenges they face in order to support the cattle industry.

National Ag Day is March 24, 2020. It’s a special day to recognize and celebrate the contributions of agriculture. We should all “thank a farmer” at every meal and every time we get dressed. Therefore, National Ag Day is an organized effort to do just that. See the Agriculture Council of America’s website for more details: https://www.agday.org/.

Especially today, the agricultural community is showing its every-day-grit. It does so by continuing its important calling of feeding and clothing the world in the face of the current COVID-19 outbreak. Today, children in rural families are home due to school closures. They are working alongside their parents to provide food and fiber for the other 99% of the population. Safety requires shutting down many industries to avoid spreading the virus. However, the agricultural and trucking sectors are working as hard as ever to ensure the rest of us have what we need to weather the storm. Planting, harvesting, milking, and calving do not stop in the face of a pandemic.

COVID-19 Restrictions Exclude Agriculture

Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued an executive order on March 17th prohibiting gatherings over 25 people. Certain organizations (like farmers markets) didn’t know whether they would need to shut down operations as a result of the order. Consequently the Oregon Department of Agriculture issued guidance on March 20th. This guidance identified farmers, ranchers, food processors, farm workers, truckers, and service suppliers as “essential services” that are not required to shut down in response to the Governor’s order.

Schroeder Law Offices extends a giant “THANK YOU!” to the agriculture community. Agriculture is the backbone of the Nation on National Ag Day, during times of illness, and every day! It is truly our pleasure to provide water rights support to the agriculture community on National Ag Day and always.

Photo: The children of Bingham Beef in North Powder, Oregon, hearing “another job” during their extended “spring break.” Photo credit: Carly Carlson.

Every year the Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) allows 15 districts to change their place of use without going through a long Transfer Application process. This process, called the Irrigation District Pilot Project, allows one transfer application for every irrigation season. The Project started in 2003 and the Oregon State Legislature has extended it several times. Currently is set to sunset or end on January 2, 2022, and the most recent extension was in 2015 through the SB 267 bill. 

Through this program irrigation districts are able to change their place of use within their legal boundary only. A simple process for providing transfers in place of use can allow irrigation districts to better serve their users based on the best availability. 

Below is a list of the Districts who are a part of the Pilot Project for this 2020 season: 

1. Owyhee Irrigation District
2. Tualatin Valley Irrigation District
3. West Extension Irrigation District
4. Westland Irrigation District
5. Stanfield Irrigation District
6. Hermiston Irrigation District
7. Talent Irrigation District
8. Rogue River Valley Irrigation District
9. Arnold Irrigation District
10. Central Oregon Irrigation District
11. North Unit Irrigation District
12. Ochoco Irrigation District
13. Sutherlin Water Control District

If any Districts is unable or does not need to participate in the program, another District may take their place. Districts are identified by OWRD, who then post their information and Watermaster contact information in their public notice, per SB 267 requirement. For more information on types of Water Right Transfer Applications available to irrigation districts visit OWRD’s website regarding district transfers. 

To learn more about all things water browse our Schroeder Law Offices blog! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Caitlin Skulan and Lisa Mae Gage

On January 31, 2020 the Nevada State Engineer Tim Wilson issued the Order of Determination of the Relative Rights in and to All Waters of the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin. This order is the State Engineer’s final determinations of all the vested claims to water in the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin.  Nevada Revised Statutes “NRS” Chapter 533 governs the procedure for adjudications before the State Engineer and Court systems.

Filing Final Order with District Court

Now that a final order is issued, the State Engineer will file the Order of Determination with the clerk of the district court in which the water sources are located. The water rights subject to the Diamond Valley adjudication are not located wholly within one county, rather, they are located in Elko and Eureka counties. Elko County District Court is located in the Fourth Judicial District, while Eureka County is located in the Seventh Judicial District. When this happens, Nevada law directs the State Engineer to notify each of the judicial districts of his intention to file the Order of Determination, at which time the judges are to confer and agree upon where the court proceedings will be held. After the Judicial District is determined, the State Engineer will file the Order of Determination, evidence and transcripts with the court clerk. If the judges fail to notify the State Engineer of their decision within a statutorily prescribed period, the State Engineer can file the Order of Determination with the judicial district of his choosing.

Setting of Hearing on Order of Determination

Once the State Engineer’s record (Final Order, evidence and testimony) are filed with the District Court, the District Court will issue an order setting a Hearing on the Order of Determination. The court will provide the State Engineer with a copy of the Order Setting Hearing and the State Engineer will mail a copy to all interested parties. In addition, the State Engineer will publish the Order setting hearing in newspapers of general circulation for Elko and Eureka counties.

Exceptions to the Order of Determination

If any party feels aggrieved or dissatisfied with the Order of Determination they can file objections. At least five (5) days before the date of the hearing, that party must file with the District Court their objections by filing a Notice of Exceptions to the Order of Determination. This notice must state briefly the exceptions to the order and give the party’s requested prayer for relief.

Hearing on Order of Determination and Decree

If no exceptions to the Order of Determination are filed, on the day of the hearing the Court can issue its Findings of Fact, Judgment and Decree (“Decree”). If exceptions are filed, each party filing exceptions will appear at the hearing. The Court will prepare and provide all parties a copy of its Proposed Findings of Fact, Judgment and Decree at least thirty days before it intends to execute the Decree. Once the Decree has been executed by the District Court, there is a further opportunity to appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court.

While the issuance of the State Engineer’s Order of Determination is a good milestone in determining the vested rights in the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin, we may still be a long way from obtaining a final Decree.

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

OWRD’s General Definition

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

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

“Aquifers” in the Upper Klamath Basin

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

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

“Hydraulic Connection” under Divisions 9 & 25

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

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

Well Construction & Commingling Rules

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

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

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

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

DEQ Rules

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

On January 28, 2020, the U.S Navy will hold a public informational meeting to present their Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed modernization of the Fallon Range Training Complex in northern Nevada. The presentation will begin at 5:00 p.m. and will also provide an opportunity for the public to provide oral comments.

Meeting Information:

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Fallon Convention Center

100 Campus Way

Fallon, NV 89406

5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

The proposal to modernize would incorporate a renewal of the Navy’s current public land withdrawal and include an additional withdrawal of public lands and acquisition of non-federal land, airspace expansion and modifications, and upgrades to range infrastructure.

The Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement can be found online here or at any of the following public libraries for public viewing: Austin, Carson City, Churchill County, Crescent Valley, Downtown Reno, Eureka, Fernley, Gabbs Community, Mineral County, Pershing County, and Yerington. 

For more information, visit www.FRTCModernization.com .

Other related post .

Featured Photo Credit: USNI News

More and more in Oregon, hopeful groundwater use applicants are finding that proposed uses of groundwater are denied by the Oregon Water Resources Department due to the agency’s finding of hydraulic connection with surface water sources and the potential for groundwater use to cause substantial interference with existing surface water rights. When the agency makes such findings, the Department looks at whether surface water is available to support the proposed new groundwater use, and, in most cases, it is not – either the administrative basin rules prohibit the new use, or surface water availability data shows that surface water is not available. In short, the proposed groundwater source is too connected to surface water for the agency to approve the application.

But an enigma exists in Oregon water law where the same source of groundwater is not connected enough to surface water to allow a surface-water-to-groundwater transfer. Transfers allow water right holders to change the terms of their water use rights. In some cases, surface water right holders may wish to change their surface water points of diversion to groundwater wells. That type of change is authorized under Oregon law, but the administrative rules impose certain distance and connectivity requirements. First, the well cannot be more than 500 feet from the authorized point of diversion, or else a geology report must accompany the application to attest to the connection between the sources of water. Second, the proposed groundwater use must affect the surface water source “similarly,” meaning the use of groundwater would result in stream depletion of at least 50 percent of the rate of appropriations within 10 days of pumping. The Oregon Water Resources Departments uses stream depletion modeling to determine if this factor is met.

It is often difficult for water users to predict whether their proposed use of groundwater will affect the surface water source similarly, especially because the Oregon Water Resources Department is far from consistent when it comes to its application of various models. However, in our experience, certain factors heavily affect the outcome of surface-water-to-groundwater transfers. For example, is the well existing or proposed? If the well is existing, the source aquifer for the groundwater use is certain, whereas the Department may make assumptions related to proposed wells. Applicants often do not include a certain depth figure for a proposed well in their transfer application because their well driller will need to make that determination during the drilling process. If the majority of the wells in the area of the proposed well are drilled into a confined aquifer, the Department is likely to assume that the proposed well will be similarly constructed in order to be productive, and may deny the application on the basis that the source of groundwater pumped from the proposed well will not be connected enough to the surface water source. Thus, the proposed source of groundwater should be unconfined, and the proposed well should be drilled extremely close to the authorized point of diversion to allow the applicant the best chance of success.

All too often, we talk to water users who were advised by other consultants that surface-water-to-groundwater transfers are automatically approved so long as the proposed well will be within 500 feet of the authorized surface water point of diversion. That is not the case! It can be difficult to get the Oregon Water Resources Department’s approval on these types of transfers, and therefore it is very important to understand the factors that affect the agency’s decision and the water user’s options.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schroeder Law Welcomes new Legal Assistant and is happy to announce the newest addition to its Reno team, Leslie Velazquez. As our newest Legal Assistant, Leslie will be working to assist our paralegals and attorneys on client matters, marketing, and other administrative duties. Leslie earned her Associates of Arts degree from Truckee Meadows Community College in May of 2016. Shortly after, she obtain her Bachelors of Liberal Arts in Criminal Justice from the University of Nevada, Reno in December of 2018, majoring in Criminal Justice with a minor in Psychology.

Leslie was born and raised in Reno, Nevada where she saw the development of Nevada’s agriculture grow and extend over the years. She is eager to develop knowledge on Nevada’s Water Rights. She enjoys spending time family, hiking, and playing soccer year around. She is excited to join the Schroeder team working to assist our community with all their water needs.

Schroeder Law Offices does everything water, including educating others on the basics of water law, resource planning and water rights.

Recently at an educational one day “Boot Camp,” attorney Laura Schroeder covered an expansive list of water related topics for registrants from the Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation District. The class was tailored specifically to the audience’s questions and each attendee walked away with a gift certificate for a personal, free hour of consultation on water rights from Schroeder Law Offices, as well as wealth of new information.

Upcoming Water Rights Boot camps include this week with the Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District on Thursday, November 21^st. A link to the event can be found here. 

Unable to attend this event but wanting to know more? Click here to learn about the presentation topics our office provides and how you can schedule and public or private presentation with one of our attorneys.

Reports of a broken barge lock at the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River surfaced on September 9th. The crack was discovered last week and crews began working Monday morning on repairs. The cause of the damage is unknown. To begin the repairs, the crews must first demolish the cracked concrete section. It remains unclear, however, when the repairs will be complete.

Navigation locks allow barges to pass through the concrete dams that were built across the Columbia and Snake Rivers to generate hydroelectricity for the West. A boat will enter the lock which is then sealed. The water is then lowered or raised inside the lock to match the level of the river on the other side of the dam. When the levels match, the lock is then opened and the boat exits.

The concrete that needs to be repaired acts as the seal for the lock. The damage to the concrete at the Bonneville Dam resulted in significant leaking—enough that water levels were falling when the lock was in operation. Thus, immediate repair was necessary.

The Columbia River is a major shipping highway and the shutdown means barges cannot transport millions of tons of wheat, wood, and other goods from the inland Pacific Northwest to other markets.

Eight million tons of cargo travel inland on the Columbia and Snake rivers each year. Kristin Meira, the executive director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association said that 53% of U.S. wheat exports were transported on the Columbia River in 2017.

According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, about $2 billion in commercial cargo travels the system annually, and it is the top export gate in the U.S. for wheat and barley and the number two export gate for corn.

This shutdown comes as terrible news for farmers in inland Oregon, Washington, and Idaho trying to ship their wheat out. Rob Rich, vice president of marine services for Shaver Transportation, said that farmers truck their wheat to 27 inland grain elevators where it is loaded onto barges headed to the Pacific Ocean. He also stated that rail and trucking are not reliable alternatives.

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

Notice regarding final requests for revision of the mapping of Newlands Project Water Rights has been issued by the Nevada Division of Water Resources (“NDWR”). NDWR is overseeing the revision process of identifying and mapping water rights in the Newlands Project, and will be assisting water rights owners with identification and revision as is required. Though more information regarding the project schedule can be found on NDWR’s online database, the following workshop dates will be available to Newlands Project water right owners at the below-listed locations:

Fernley City Hall
Room 136
595 Silver Lace Blvd.
Fernley, NV 89408

• Monday, August 26, 1:00pm to 7:00pm
• Tuesday, August 27, 1:00pm to 7:00pm
• Wednesday, August 28, 9:00am to 3:00pm
• Thursday, August 29, 9:00am to 3:00pm

Churchill County Commissioners
Community Room
155 N. Taylor Street, Suite 110
Fallon, NV 89406

• Monday, September 9, 1:00pm to 7:00pm
• Tuesday, September 10, 1:00pm to 7:00pm
• Wednesday, September 11, 9:00am to 3:00pm
• Thursday, September 12, 9:00am to 3:00pm

The final map viewing and revision process started on July 1, 2019, with all Requests for Revision and supporting documentation due to NDWR no later than September 30, 2019. Upon review of water rights, owners can provide updates to NDWR via NDWR’s Request for Revision form.

Newlands Project water right owners are encouraged to review their water rights of use and submit the Request for Revision form if they believe that their water rights are inaccurately represented by the mapping project. Once all revision requests have been received and reviewed, the State Engineer will make final determinations. Currently, the completion date for the final report is set for September of 2020.

Upon request, Schroeder Law Offices can assist Project water users in the process or otherwise advise on the legal consequences of improperly mapped water rights.

On July 24, 2019, Tim Wilson, Nevada Division of Water Resources’ acting State Engineer gave an informative presentation on the 2019 Legislative Session. Mr. Wilson provided summaries of several water related bills that were introduced and/or passed during this session. A few of the more interesting bills are described below.

Assembly Bill 62 (AB 62)

AB 62 was introduced by the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining on behalf of Nevada Division of Water Resources (“NDWR”) on November 19, 2018. This bill proposed legislative changes concerning the granting of Applications for Extensions of Time for Proofs of Completion only. It does not address Extensions of Time for Proofs of Beneficial Use. Currently a permittee is allowed any number of extensions of time to file a Proof of Completion of Work. According to Mr. Wilson, the threshold for granting an extension of time for a proof of completion is unreasonably low as the permittee need only show good faith and reasonable diligence to perfect their water right application. NRS 533.380 defines “reasonable diligence” as the “steady application of effort to perfect the application in a reasonably expedient and efficient manner under all the facts and circumstances.” Water cannot be placed to beneficial use unless and until the construction works are complete. Mr. Wilson noted that the granting of unlimited extensions of time is undermining the basic principal of beneficial use.

AB 62 sought to develop hard time limits on the filings of the Proofs of Completion of Work depending on the size of the project and the amount of money expended on the project. For example, a permit for municipal use would require a Proof of Completion to be filed within 15 years and at least $50,000 must be expended on the project. A permit for an irrigation or stockwater use would have a 5 year cap with a much smaller minimum expenditure. To accommodate permittees who are unable to complete construction of works for reason outside of their control, AB 62 proposed a “tolling” provision to suspend the time limit for express conditions such as the permittee is waiting on federal, state or local government consent necessary for the project or a pending court action or adjudication.

Many amendments were made to AB 62 and the bill was eventually passed by both the Assembly and the Senate. The Governor removed the majority of the language proposed, updated the statute to direct the State Engineer to adopt any regulation necessary to carry out provisions of the statute concerning Proofs of Completion and ordered that copies of the regulations be provided to any person upon request, signed the Bill, and directed NDWR to draft regulations. AB 62 as-enacted can be found at (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/80th2019/Bill/5987/Text). Workshops and public meetings will be held and NDWR plans to make the draft regulation language and updates available on their website at http://water.nv.gov/index.aspx.

Assembly Bill 95 (AB 95)

AB 95 was introduced by the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining on behalf of the Legislative Committee on Public Lands on January 24, 2019. This bill proposed legislative changes for domestic well allowance during times of curtailment. Nevada statutes at NRS 534.110 require the State Engineer to conduct investigations of basins, or portions of basins; and, where it appears there is not enough groundwater supply to satisfy permittees and vested rights holders’ withdrawals, the State Engineer may order withdrawals (including withdrawals from domestic wells) to be restricted based on priority.

AB 95 amends the statutes so that in the event the State Engineer finds, or a court orders, State Engineer restriction, State Engineer curtailment, or basin designation under a Critical Management Area, the State Engineer can allow a domestic well to withdraw up to 0.5 acre feet annually, if it can be recorded by a water meter. The revised statute does not make domestic wells immune to curtailment but ensures they will still receive some water. AB 95 was passed by both the Assembly and Senate and was signed by the Governor. AB 95 as-enacted can be found at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/80th2019/Bill/6082/Text.

Senate Bill 140 (SB 140)

SB 140 was introduced by the Committee on Natural Resources on February 11, 2019 and proposed to reserve 10 percent of water available for appropriation in certain basins not yet fully or over appropriated. Senator Pete Goicoechea testified that the intent of SB 140 is to “avoid over-appropriation of available water in basins by placing a marker for retention.” SB 140 was passed by the Senate and Assembly and signed by the Governor. SB 140 as-enacted can be found at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/80th2019/Bill/6171/Text. As enrolled, NRS 533 will now include a provision wherein for each basin where there is uncommitted groundwater pursuant to existing permits, certificates or otherwise, the State Engineer shall reserve 10 percent of the total remaining, non-committed, unappropriated groundwater. As introduced, SB 140 intended for the reserved water to be available for use during times of drought or emergency, however, as enrolled, the statute further explains that the groundwater reserved in the basin is not available for any use.

During the presentation many questions and comments were posed as to how this will be implemented, and all the issues that come into play practically as well as legally. NDWR now must attempt to figure out the amounts of uncommitted water available: pending applications need to be resolved before this determination can be made; NDWR needs to determine how to address consumptive vs. non-consumptive uses; and, NDWR needs to decide how to address areas where basins share perennial yield amounts. One can only anticipate that this Bill will be amended in the future.

It is no secret that Nevada water is a precious resource that needs laws in place to protect its availability to current and future water users. Several bills in the 2019 session related to the protection and conservation of water. Nevada’s precarious water situation has gained the attention of our legislature and it will be interesting to see what water related bills will be introduced next session.

For the past decade, Schroeder Law Offices has provided opportunities to law students interested in learning water and natural resource law. Former SLO law clerks have established successful legal practices across the Pacific Northwest and beyond.

Schroeder Law Offices is pleased to introduce our 2019 summer law clerk, Katie Jourdan. Katie is returning to work with the attorneys and staff after having clerked previously with SLO during the fall of 2018.

Katie is entering her last year of law school at Lewis and Clark Law School, where she will complete her Juris Doctorate in May of 2020. With an emphasis on Natural Resource and Land Use Law, Ms. Jourdan has experience researching and analyzing water rights issues. Previously, Katie worked with the Western Resource Legal Center on land use and agriculture issues. She also interned with the Washington Cattlemen’s Association where she conducted research on recent land use legislation. 

Katie holds a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Studies and Journalism from Gonzaga University, where her enthusiasm for natural resources has paved her way to law school. Her background in agriculture and small farm life further nurtures an empathy for water users and the issues that rural America faces.

This summer, Katie is putting to good use her time spent in the classroom and exercising her proficiency in legal research. She is working with the attorneys and staff at Schroeder on client cases, educational presentations, and litigation preparation. In the fall, Katie will begin her final year at Lewis and Clark.

Schroeder Law Offices is pleased to announce that Attorney/Partner Sarah Liljefelt accepted the position of Water Resources Committee Chair for the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, beginning in the coming year. Sarah has been a member of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association for many years, and has been very active with the Oregon CattleWomen as Vice President and Legislative Committee Chair. She is excited to use her Oregon water resources knowledge to support and defend the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association’s water interests in the years to come.

Sarah’s new position was announced earlier this week when she presented at the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association’s Mid-Year Conference in Canyonville, Oregon. Sarah provided an update on the Klamath River Basin Adjudication and conjunctive surface water/groundwater management in the Klamath Basin. Some of the other highlights from the conference included an update of Western Resources Legal Center’s recent victories by Executive Director Caroline Lobdell (Sarah is a former WRLC law clerk), and a trip to Melrose Vineyards (https://www.melrosevineyards.com/) with the Oregon Cattlewomen – beautiful location, friendly staff, and great food and wine!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sheepherding in the West dates back to late1800s, and early 1900s when people migrated to California, Nevada, Oregon and Idaho in search of gold and silver. People soon realized (the Basques in particular) that while prospecting for gold and silver was a lucrative business, wealth realized from prospecting was unsteady and uncertain. A more reliable trade developed in clothing and feeding the gold and silver miners.

According to the University of Nevada, Sheep are resilient in harsh weather conditions and are capable of covering great distances while grazing. Nevada in particular provides an ideal opportunity with vast public lands and low start-up costs for building a herd. In fact, several early sheepherders accepted payment in sheep allowing them to build their own herd while they worked.

The industry, like all others, has overcome rises and falls. Overgrazing, scarcity of water, and conflicts between ranchers and graziers arose. Further, nomadic sheepherding could be a painfully lonesome lifestyle, moving to new grounds each day, and only seeing a camp tender maybe once a week or perhaps only a few times a month in the winter.

While the industry may have changed over the years, sheep herding continues to flourish in the western United States! This photo depicts shipping day in Ridgecrest, California!

For more information on sheepherding, please check out the multimedia exhibit created by University of Nevada at http://knowledgecenter.unr.edu/sheepherders/default.aspx.