On February 1, 2017, Laura Schroeder, Alan Schroeder, and Therese Ure had the honor of attending the Society of Range Management’s Award Ceremony to honor friend of Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. and Schroeder & Lezamiz Law Office, LLP, Al Steninger, in the receipt of the Sustained Lifetime Achievement Award. From the words of the Society for Range Management:

Al Steninger joined the Society for Range Management in 1961, and is a life member. A native of Elko, NV, Al has had a varied career. He’s been a buckaroo, a ranch manager, eared his BS/MS from Colorado State University, worked as a BLM Area Manager, range consultant, ranch broker, appraiser and arbitrator. Since 1968, he has operated Western Range Service and Nevada Ranch Service in Elko serving private clients west-wide. Al has improved management on millions of acres of rangeland. In all phases of his work, Al has maintained adherence to scientifically-based range management strategies. Al advocates that good range studies result in good range management decisions. Not only has he collected data, interpreted data, and turned data into management, he has applied the data on-the-ground on several large ranges he managed or advised, bring innovative range management into practice. Al’s consulting is built on strict ethical standards; he believes his clients deserve the truth based on facts. His brokerage and arbitration policy is: be thorough, be transparent, and provide service and ethics which are beyond reproach. His integrity has attracted collaboration with top scientists and educators in range management in conducting range studies and expert testimony. As part of a pioneering Elko family, Al has been active in support of the Elko County Fair, Northern Nevada Community College, Elko Historical Museum, and other civic projects. For his long-time efforts to combine good science with practical experience in managing rangelands The Society for Range Management recognizes Al Steninger with a 2017 Sustained Lifetime Achievement Award.

Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. and Schroeder & Lezamiz Law Office, LLP sponsored a reception after the Award Ceremony to honor Steninger’s achievements which was attended by 40-50 of Steninger’s range management colleagues. We were honored to be a part of this celebration.

I was able to attend the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation’s course on Advanced Public Lands held in Santa Fe this January. Between all agencies, there is approximately 652 million acres of federally managed lands. Given the timing of the conference, many speculated and discussed what development of public lands might bring under the current Trump Administration. Many speculate that this Administration will bring more of a use, disposal and/or privatization model.

Various models of public lands use have come and gone throughout the history of the US including Acquisition, Disposal, Privatization, Retention, Management, and Nature Conservation, among others. With many forces driving our models including population growth, energy development, increased recreation and environmental values, and limited natural resources, it will be interesting to see how this is all balanced in the next four years.

Those at the RMMLF conference speculate that we will see reform to the ESA, Antiquities Act, Federal Land Transfers, Energy Initiative, Land Use, and Ocean Withdrawal Orders. There is speculation that the President will revise National Monument Orders and/or reverse several of the Executive Orders signed in the last months of the Obama Administration. Will there be administrative reform on the coal moratoriums, climate initiatives and BLM plan and regulations? Exciting times are ahead as we are in a front seat to watch history change with regard to public land use!

As an update to the previous blog posted regarding the Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization and Public Comments, https://www.water-law.com/deadline-approaching-submit-nepa-scoping-comments-nevadas-fallon-range-training-complex/, the deadline to submit comments has been extended. The new deadline is December 12, 2016. If you are interested in submitting comments there are several ways to submit comments including online or by mail.

Submit Comments Online:

To submit comments online, please visit:
https://frtcmodernization.com/Public-Involvement/Submit-Your-Comment

Mail In Comments:

For a written form, please follow the link to download and print a pdf form:
https://frtcmodernization.com/portals/FRTCModernization/files/forms/FRTCMEIS_Scoping_Comment_Form.pdf

Mail written comments to the address listed below:

Naval Facilities Engineering command Southwest
Code EV21.AK
1220 Pacific Highway
Building 1, 5^th Floor
San Diego, CA 92132

In order for your comments to be considered in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the comments MUST be postmarked or received online by December 12, 2016.

NEPA is the acronym for the National Environmental Policy Act.  NEPA’s purposes included setting national policy to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humans and their environment; promoting efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment; and, enriching the understanding of the ecological systems and important natural resources. See 42 U.S. C. 4321 for additional details.  To promote these purposes, NEPA defined processes federal agencies must follow when they propose an action, grant a permit, or agree to fund or otherwise authorize any other entity to undertake an action that could possibly affect environmental resources. Thus, an  EA (Environmental Assessment) or an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) are resulting products of NEPA analysis.  Generally speaking, NEPA’s requirement is simply to engage in the a process that analyzes the effects on the environment with public input and disclosure, before taking action.

Once a project is determined to have a federal nexus to require NEPA, the first stage in the process is scoping.  In scoping the lead federal agency asks for comment and input from the public as to the nature and the extent of the issues and impacts to be addressed in the EIS.  It is during scoping that your comment on the proposed action’s effect on you or the environment, rangeland resources, water sources, wildlife, livestock grazing, cultural resources, and the like, are required. During scoping, you can identify a reasonable alternative solution, state that alternative with specificity, and request that it be considered in the NEPA process.  In the end, your input in the scoping process could change what the agency determines are the issues and what alternatives might be considered when that lead federal agency prepares the Environmental Impact Statement.

NEPA processes do NOT give the agency authorization to proceed on a project or provide funding for a project.  It is merely one required step in the federal process of decision making.  Once NEPA is completed, the agency usually issues a ROD (Record of Decision) that outlines how, or under which alternative, the agency may proceed forward. Generally speaking, lawsuits related to NEPA seek declaratory judgments or writs of mandamus to establish the NEPA obligations (ie the agency needs to follow more process).  NEPA does not authorize awards of attorney’s fees and expenses for prevailing parties unless a plaintiff can qualify under EAJA, 28 USC 2412.

NEPA, is the only the precursor to agency action.  If your rights or interests may be affected by a proposed action, now it the time to start positioning yourself to show harm so that you may be adequately compensated in separate proceedings should the proposed action proceed.

In Fallon Nevada, NEPA scoping began for the Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization’s proposed action that will 1) renew existing 202,589 acres of public land withdrawal that is set to expire on November 6, 2021; 2) withdraw and reserve for military use 604,744 acres of additional public land to expand existing land ranges; 3) acquire 65,160 acres of “non-federal” land (think state owned or privately held) to expand existing land ranges; 4) expand special use airspace, as well as reconfigure existing airspace; and 5) modify range infrastructure to support he expansion. Scoping Comments are due, pursuant to the Federal Register Notice, on November 25, 2016 (see, Vol. 81, No. 166 at 58919 dated August 26, 2016).  See also, www.frtcmodernization.com for more information relating to the proposed action.

This expansion will include several grazing allotments.  Some of these allotments will be completely closed to grazing, while others will be modified in some way.  Both the Nevada Farm Bureau and the Nevada Cattlemens Association are working to prepare comments in this scoping process, however you should also submit your own comments related specifically to your affected areas. A map of the effected grazing allotments in relation to the proposed action can be found at: https://frtcmodernization.com/portals/FRTCModernization/files/maps/FRTCLM05140v11_NAS_Fallon-Proposed_Land_Renewal_and_Expansion_Map_with_Grazing_Allotments.pdf

Once the scoping period closes, the agencies will prepare a draft EIS.  According to the public meetings, the draft EIS is expected to be published in the Winter of 2018.  After the draft is published, there will be another round of public meetings and another comment period relating to the draft EIS document.  Currently the final EIS is expected in the Fall of 2019, with Record of Decision to be issued in the Winter of 2020.

Don’t wait to get your comments drafted as the November 25^th deadline is the day after Thanksgiving!

The Department of Defense Plans to Expand the Fallon Nevada Navy Training Complex. Now is the Time to Participate and Comment in the NEPA process!

The Fallon Range Training Complex (FRTC) is planning expansion of its Fallon Nevada facilities and announced in the Federal Register its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS will assess the potential environmental consequences of maintaining and modernizing the FRTC which would include land range expansion through additional land withdrawal and land acquisition, airspace modifications, and public land withdrawal renewal. The proposed action includes withdrawal and reservation for military use of approximately 604,744 acres of additional public land, and acquisition of approximately 65,160 acres of non-federal land to expand existing ranges.

A recent Nevada Farm Bureau newsletter notes concerns for the adverse impacts on farmers and ranchers due to the grazing allotments that would be impacted.
If you would like to participate in this process, there will be a series of open house meetings scheduled to take place.

Along with participation in these meetings, it is imperative that you submit comments with all your concerns over the proposed project to ensure you have legal standing as to the impacts of the proposed action in the future. Comments must be postmarked or received online no later than November 25, 2016. Stay tuned for a blog on the importance of drafting NEPA comments. More information is available at: http://www.FRTCModernization.com

Rights-of Way on Public Lands and Administrative Avoidance

Century old rights-of-way uses of public lands can only be confirmed through a long, expensive federal court process. Because the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) cannot determine the validity of water delivery and road rights-of-way on public lands, farmers, ranchers, and local governments may face an uphill battle to legally confirm and adjudicate these long-standing uses.

Revised Statutes (RS) 2477 and 2339 were components of the Mining Law of 1866, also called H.R. 365. This Act recognized the activities of settlers and miners occupying the West and encourage development of federal lands.

RS 2477 recognized roads and highways on public lands not already withdrawn from entry. RS 2339 protects the use of water infrastructure used for mining, agriculture, manufacture, and other purposes in place prior to the lands being withdrawn as well. These road and ditch laws honored development protocols and uses based on the local custom and laws at the time of early settlement.

While these laws are no longer in effect with the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), these self-granting rights-of-ways created while the law was in effect have not disappeared.  FLPMA recognizes existing rights on public lands prior to its passage. See: http://www.blm.gov/ca/dir/pdfs/2003/ib/CAIB2003-023ATT2.pdf

Without a way for agencies to definitively determine RS 2477 and RS 2339 rights-of-way claims, federal courts are currently the only venue to address these issues.  For more information, see: http://nvbar.org/articles/content/rs-2477-public-rights-way-era-administrative-avoidance

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.

With the political race underway, one group has taken a hard look at land management objectives on federal lands. In response, this group prepared a list of the top ten ways to improve federal land management in an open letter to the United States Presidential Candidates. In summary, top ten items include:

1. Retain federal ownership of most federal lands, but with significant changes.
2. Enhance the National Park System by converting some of the existing National Monuments to Park status with approval of the applicable State.
3. Adopt and implement State sage grouse management plans, and withdraw BLM and USFS land use and forest planning as related to sage grouse.
4. Manage wild horses and burros to achieve “appropriate management levels” (AML) within 4 years with priority timing on sage grouse breeding, late-brood rearing, and winter habitat areas.
5. Repeal (or amend) the Antiquities Act of 1906, to negate the ability of the President to unilaterally establish National Monuments without the approval of Congress.
6. Release Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) within 4 years unless Congress approves to establish the same (in whole or in part) to Wilderness status.
7. Retain, but amend, the Equal Access to Justice Act, and similar fee-shifting statutes.
8. Amend the Endangered Species Act to more precisely defining the terms “species,” “endangered species,” and “threatened species.”
9. Amend the Administrative Procedure Act to provide litigants a meaningful opportunity for participation and for judicial review.
10. Consolidate administration of the public lands and national forest system lands into one federal land management agency.

Click here for a full copy of this open letter. Open Letter to Presidential Candidates — Top Ten Ways to Improve Federal Land Management in the West 

• The positions expressed in the letter are those of the individual signatory and do not intend to express the positions of the firm/business or its clients/customers to which the signatory is associated/employed.

Forfeiture

We’ve all heard “Use it or Lose it” referring to the Prior Appropriation System.  The use it or lose it concept is the term we use for legal forfeiture which will apply to your water rights of use depending on your jurisdiction and type of water right.  Generally, this concept requires beneficial use of water appropriated under state law over a specific time interval.  In some states (like Nevada and Oregon), “use it or lose” is statutorily controlled, the law describes when a water user must exercise their water right of use.  In Oregon both groundwater and surface water certificates require water use once for every five consecutive year time frame. ORS 540.610. In Nevada, the statute provides that only groundwater certificated uses are subject to forfeiture for non-use if not used at least once every five years.  NRS 534.090. Thus, if you last used your certificated water right of use in 2011, you best put whatever water is available for appropriation under your certificate in place for 2016!  Make sure to use it so you are not at risk of losing it!

Abandonment

Use it or lose it as defined by the water code should not be confused with abandonment, a court made doctrine that may be more broadly applied.  Abandonment will cause cancellation of a water use by intention not to use.  Intention can be established by expression as in a written document or by a physical act.  The physical act of abandonment can include placing a permanent structure over or on top of water righted lands.  If you plan to build the next industrial sized plant, packing shed, scale house, onion storage, fill in your ditch, or take out your diversion structures, etc., you should file that water use transfer or change application prior to any construction!

While this gives you the very “basic” overview of these two legal concepts, Schroeder Law Offices can provide a more detailed explanation

The Nevada Cattlemen’s Association posted a news release on May 16, 2016 regarding the Permittee Outreach Workshop. This workshop is geared towards Nevada Cattlemen and Cattlewomen who graze cattle on BLM permits.

With the listing of the Sage Grouse as “Not warranted” now more than ever it is imperative to establish with state and Federal Agencies that proper grazing has and can have a positive influence on the Sage Grouse Habitat. The Nevada Cattlemen’s Association in conjunction with Nevada Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada Department of Agriculture will be putting on a series of workshops around the state to have information sharing and discussion about how the Greater Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment, and implementation of Table 2.2 will apply to permittees.

The series of workshops will take place as follows:

Nevada is taking a close look at water rights of use, thus now is the time to make sure your use rights are in good standing. With a shuffling of basin engineers within the Nevada Division of Water Resources, water rights are being reviewed to determine compliance!

• Are your rights of use in your name? If not, it is time to bring the ownership current as required under Nevada Law!
• If you have a permitted right, are you diligently developing your use to bring it towards certification?
• If you are not using your groundwater, are you at risk for forfeiture?
• Do you have a metering requirement? if yes, is your meter installed and are you recording monthly measurement readings?

All of these items and more are under scrutiny by the State Engineer’s office. In the last few months we have seen a number of forfeiture letters go out to unsuspecting water users, don’t let this be you! Do not wait to review your water use rights to ensure they are in compliance!

This week, the Duncan Family contributed to feeding the world by gathering their annual calf crop and sending them to others who would raise them for market.  Raising stock, “ranching,” is an age old way of life a culture that is passed down through generations.  The four generations in the Duncan Family presented in these photographs, illustrate that living off the land and turning forage from lands unsuitable for vegetable crops and grown into beef still persists.  Since approximately 1968, rancher and cattle buyer, Dave Stix has purchased the Duncan calf crop.  Through generations, Schroeder Law Offices purposefully supports these ranching families in developing and maintaining their water and forage use needs to support their heritage and way of life.

Photo Credit: Joan Duncan

Pictured: Maxine Duncan, Dan Duncan, AJ Duncan, Kelli Duncan Edmonds (and children), Rusty Kiel, John Aufdermaur, Dave Stix

The USDA Farm Service Agency January 2015 Nevada Newsletter is published. Please review this information for important program deadlines affecting farmers and ranchers, as well as general information related to the Farm Bill and other USDA programs. To view newsletter, click here: http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USFSA/bulletins/e98f05

The feds are in the process of using the sage grouse to eliminate economic and recreational use of the sagebrush grassland in the same fashion they used the spotted owl to substantially shut down the timber harvest business in the northwest.

However, their plans to impose sage hen regulation are more far reaching than what the spotted owl accomplished.

For an in-depth analysis and review of this issue please see the following link.

By: Sarah Liljefelt

The Clean Water Act (“CWA”) prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source into the navigable waters of the United States without an NPDES permit. The Act defines a “point source” as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance.” 33 U.S.C. §1362(14). Natural runoff is not a point source, and does not require a permit.

Agricultural runoff is exempt by the Act from the permit requirement, even if the runoff is collected into ditches or channels before being returned to a navigable water source. The EPA has consistently held that storm-water runoff from logging roads should be treated similarly to agricultural runoff. Since 1976 the EPA has distinguished between discharges from silviculture (forestry and logging) activities that are a direct result of controlled water use by a person (point source) and those that are the result of natural runoff (non-point source). Thus, it has been the practice that natural runoff from silviculture activities did not require a permit, even if the runoff was collected into discernible channels before discharge.

On August 17, 2010, the Ninth Circuit handed down a decision that invalidated the EPA’s policy of exempting from the CWA’s permitting requirement natural runoff from silviculture activities, if it is collected or controlled before discharge. Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 2010 WL 3222105 (2010), also available at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/17/07-35266.pdf. The court held that the prior silviculure policy was inconsistent with the text of the CWA because the CWA requires permitting for the discharge of pollutants from point sources, and distinguishes between point and non-point sources based on the method of discharge into the body of water, not based on the initial cause of the discharge. Because the defendants in this case, the Oregon State Forester, members of the Oregon Board of Forestry, and various timber companies, channeled storm-water runoff into ditches and pipes before discharge into forest streams and rivers, the court held that these discharges constituted point source pollution, which requires a permit.

The NEDC v. Brown decision will require the EPA to treat controlled runoff of natural storm-water from logging roads as Phase I stormwater: storm-water that is associated with industrial activities and requires an NPDES permit to be released. The Ninth Circuit recognized the sizeable demand that its decision will place on the EPA, but stated its confidence, “given the closely analogous NPDES permitting process for stormwater runoff from other kinds of roads, that EPA will be able to [regulate the logging road runoff] effectively and relatively expeditiously.” Id. at *20. State forestry agencies and timber companies in Oregon, who are charged with maintaining logging roads, must now seek NPDES permits for discharges of natural runoff carried into navigable waters by channels, ditches, pipes, or the like.

The Nevada Supreme Court last week put lingering municipal water use applications at risk. See the article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal at: http://www.lvrj.com/news/state-high-court-deals-setback-to-pipeline-proposal-for-southern-nevada-83014557.html.

In light of the decision, we recommend municipalities with municipal water use applications filed before 2003 make precautionary refilings immediately (as did the Southern Nevada Water Authority). It is important that the cautionary application contain appropriate remarks so that the cautionary application does not act to intentionally abandon the earlier filing in the event that this decision is reconsidered.

The 2009 Legislative Session passed House Bill 3369. Among other things, this Bill tasked Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) with developing Oregon’s Integrated Water Resources Strategy (IWRS). The IWRS goals are to build resources and tools to assist Oregon in looking at its future water needs in terms of water quantity, water quality, ecological needs, economic needs, social needs, and implications of climate change.

Issue papers were drafted addressing these areas and are found by following the link below. These issue papers are open for public comment. All comments received by the OWRD Project Team before October 31st will be available at the next Water Resources Commission meeting currently scheduled for November 19th and 20th in Salem.

According to the Project Team’s September 23, 2009 Briefing, the intent of the IWRS is to “develop a framework, consisting of a set of tools, data, and resources with statewide relevance that communities can use to develop their water resource needs.” We encourage everyone to become involved in this process as submit comments.

Integrated Water Resources Website: http://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRD/LAW/Integrated_Water_Supply_Strategy.shtml

At Schroeder Law Offices, P.C., we routinely work with our clients to develop efficient water use and management systems. Upon reviewing the competition offered below, we thought of you! Thus, if you are an innovative and efficient water user, or perhaps want to share your ideas with others then you might check out this competition!

Imagine H2O is running its inaugural competition this fall on “Water Efficiency.” Kick-off is September 1st. Competitors will provide solutions that reduce the demand or use of water in either agriculture, commercial and industrial, or residential applications. This could be done via demand response, recycling, reuse, or through any other smart management ideas. Total prizes given in 2009-10 will be $50,000. Winners will receive cash, in-depth business incubation including introductions to financiers, potential beta customers and go-to-market partners, and reduced-rate or free office space.

Imagine H2O is a not-for-profit company based in San Francisco, turning water problems into entrepreneurial opportunities. For more information on the Water Efficiency Competition, you can check out their website at www.imagineh2o.org

Good Luck in the Competition! Be sure to let us know how it goes.

Idaho Power has announced that the Boardman to Hemingway (B2H) project will be holding their Community Advisory Process Public Meetings.

Participants at these meetings will have the opportunity to:
1. Learn more about the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project.
2. Review and provide input on criteria for evaluating routes for the proposed transmission line.
3. Speak to Idaho Power representatives.

The meeting times and places are as follows:
Baker City
Wed., Aug. 12, 2009 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Baker City Community Center
2600 East St.
Baker City, OR 97814

La Grande
Thurs., Aug. 13, 2009 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Blue Mountain Conference Center
404 12th St.
La Grande, OR 97850

Pilot Rock
Wed., Aug. 19, 2009 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Pilot Rock Community Center
285 N.W. Cedar Pl.
Pilot Rock, OR 97868

Boardman
Thurs., Aug. 20, 2009 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Port of Morrow Convention Center
2 Marine Dr.
Boardman, OR 97818

Parma
Tues., Aug. 25, 2009 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Community House of Kirkpatrick Church
305 E. Bates Ave.
Parma, ID 83660

Marsing
Wed., Aug. 26, 2009 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Community Center – American Legion Hall
126 N. Bruneau Highway
Marsing, ID 83639

Ontario
Thurs., Aug. 27, 2009 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Four Rivers Cultural Center
676 S.W. Fifth Ave.
Ontario, OR 97914

For more information, follow the link to the Idaho Power website: B2H Public Meetings

Link to Exempt Well Statute: ORS 537.545

To view this video, follow this link: Hope on the Range