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!

Final rulemaking related to Forest Service permits for Ski Area Water Rights was released on December 30, 2015. Unlike an earlier directive passed in 2011, the Ski Area Water Clause will not require ski areas to transfer water rights to the federal government as a condition of operating on public land. Instead, the new clause will require ski areas to prove there is a “sufficient quantity of water to operate a ski area.” The new directive will take effect on January 29, 2016.

In 2011, sparked by the concerns that ski areas might sell their water rights in lieu of using them to operate due to rising temperatures and water scarcity, the Forest Service issued a directive that would require joint ownership of water rights by ski areas and the United States. Since water rights are typically held by the lessee, this directive would have required a transfer of rights into shared ownership in some instances, and for water rights to be acquired in the name of the United States in others. The National Ski Area Association (NSAA) brought suit against the Forest Service challenging the directive on January 9, 2012, characterizing the directive as government overreach. In December, 2012 a federal judge agreed with the NSAA and ordered the Forest Service not to enforce the proposed rule.

The December 30th directive abandons the original proposal that ski areas transfer water rights to the federal government. Instead, after an extensive public comment period, the final directive requires an applicant for a ski area permit to submit documentation prepared by a hydrologist that demonstrates there is sufficient water to operate a ski area for the entirety of the ski area permit term. The final directive explains that “sufficient water to operate a ski area” means that under typical conditions, taking into account fluctuations in utilization of the authorized improvements, fluctuations in weather and climate, changes in technology, and other factors deemed appropriate by the applicant’s qualified hydrologist of licensed engineer, the applicant has sufficient rights or access to a sufficient quantity of water to operate the permitted facilities, and to provide for the associated activities to be authorized under the ski area permit in accordance with proposed operating plan.

Additionally, if there is a change such as a change in ownership, and a ski area water facility will not be primarily used for operating a ski area, the authorization for the facility under the ski area permit will be terminated and the facility must be removed from National Forest Service lands. Lastly, if a ski area permit is terminated or revoked, the holder must give a right of first refusal of the water rights associated with the permit to the succeeding ski area permit holder. If the water use right is jointly owned with the United States, the holder must give a right of first refusal to the government.

The stated goal of this new rule is to promote the long-term sustainability of ski areas on National Forest Service lands and the communities that depend on the ski areas for revenue. There are 122 ski areas that lease approximately 180,000 acres of lands managed by the Forest Service. Ski areas received about 23 million visitors annually, contributing $3 billion to local economies and supporting approximately 64,000 full and part-time jobs in rural communities. In the West, water use rights for many ski areas are business assets, property interests that operate as collateral when re-financing. One major criticism of the original rule, was that requiring water rights to be co-owned by the federal government would limit a ski area’s ability to control their assets and thus their ability to finance operations.

Thus, the directive ensures that ski areas not only have adequate water supply for operating, but that infrastructure to handle the water supply is used only for permitted purposes under the special use permit. Hailed as a success by both the Forest Service and the ski industry, these actions demonstrate a coordinated effort to eliminate the risk of sales or transfer of water rights that might prevent a ski area from operating in the future and ensure that water will remain available for ski areas across the West.

If you don’t know the Hammond family of Harney County, Oregon, you will soon. As the Hammond protest builds momentum backed by a voluntary militia, Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son, Steven Hammond, 46, are making headlines again. Three years ago, the pair made headlines when convicted in Federal Court of arson for fires lit on the Hammond Ranch in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires. Convicted under an anti-terrorism act, Dwight Hammond served three months’ time for the conviction while his son Steven served a full year.

As the Federal Judge suspended the minimum sentence under the guidelines as “shock[ing] the conscience,” the U.S. Attorney appealed the sentence to the Ninth Circuit who ruled that both are due to return to prison to serve the federal prison terms of five years. Private landowners often find themselves at the mercy of the federal government as large parts of the West Coast are in government hands, the story of the Hammond’s conviction and resentencing may be all too familiar to private ranchers in the area who have already felt the pressures of forced sales.

Though the Hammonds have planned to report to prison today, January 4, 2016, as ordered, riled up liberty supporters from surrounding states have a different disposition. Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy whom was involved in a standoff with the government and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 2014 over grazing rights, has joined with a growing band of armed militiamen acting as organized sympathizers to the Hammonds. Though the Hammonds have no direct involvement with the militia, Bundy and others valiantly stake support claims that the Hammonds should not be tried as terrorists and have rights to the tried actions per purchase rights and federal grazing allotments. The Hammonds have and will continue respecting the rule of law and follow court orders without incident or violation. Click here to view their statement.

The Hammond family’s farm has been eyed by US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and BLM since the 1970s when ranches adjacent to the Hammonds and others were sold and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Though approached by FWS and BLM many times, the Hammonds (as well as other ranchers) refused to sell. While many ranchers in the area were forced to leave, another 32 out of 53 permits were revoked, and grazing fees were raised significantly for those who remained in the area. By the 1990s, the Hammonds were one of very few ranchers that were still private owners of property adjacent to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The four year resentencing request for Dwight and Steven Hammond comes from an appeal filed by the BLM Field Manager and Refuge Manager for the Malheur Refuge.

The Hammonds attorneys report that “the Hammonds will continue their legal efforts to renew their grazing permits. They will also pursue Executive Clemency. We hope that President Obama will agree with us and with the veteran judge who presided over the trial that the mandatory five-year minimum sentence is far too long for these ranchers.”

To sign the Petition in support of a reduction in sentencing and Executive Clemency go to: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/commute-sentences-dwight-lincoln-hammond-jr-and-steven-dwight-hammond-both-harney-county-oregon.

El Niño is gracing the West Coast of the United States and water watchers are enjoying relief from the past few years of drought, but the catch-up game may take longer than hopefuls could dream. Reports from the U.S. Climate Prediction Center indicate that wetter weather is forecast for the West Coast through at least November 24th, but may only be enough to recover part of the damage caused by drought. Not only would water storage reservoirs need to be restored to normal, levels of both surface and groundwater would also need to at least approach normalcy for El Niño to solve the West’s water scarcity issues.

Organizations such as the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program are seeking to aid with scarcity issues, whether El Niño proves itself as a force this winter or not. On November 16, 2015, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the availability of $350 million funded through the ACEP to benefit the restoration and protection of working agricultural lands and wetlands. The funding was created by the 2014 Farm Bill to protect critical water resources and wildlife habitats, but is also extended to landowners to help protect and restore key farmlands, grasslands and wetlands across the nation. According to a news release by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, private landowners can use programs like the ACEP to maintain land for farming and ranching purposes. Voluntary easement sales can help landowners engage in the conservation efforts by limiting future development to protect key resources such as water.

The news of ACEP’s funding comes down right alongside a Presidential Memorandum written in early November. The memorandum is addressed to secretaries such as USDA’s Vilsack and specifically directs such programs to, “Avoid and then minimize the harmful effects to land, water, wildlife, and other ecological resources (natural resources) caused by land- or water- disturbing activities, and to ensure that any remaining harmful effects are effectively addressed, consistent with existing mission and legal authorities.” (Western Livestock Journal)

While El Niño may bring hope to the West Coast, efforts from the USDA and ACEP will be needed to aid the long-term protection of farmland, grassland and wetland in the US, as well as the restoration and consistency of water quality and levels.

The Sacramento Superior Court of California on July 10, 2015, granted a TRO temporarily restraining the California State Water Resources Control Board’s drought curtailment action against certain senior water rights holders. The court held that the Board’s action violates due process rights and would cause irreparable harm.

On May 1, 2015 and June 12, 2015 the California State Water Resources Control Board issued notices of curtailment to West Side Irrigation District (West Side), Central Delta Water Agency (CDWA) and South Delta Water Agency (SDWA), respectively. The notices declared that the recipients were not entitled to divert water because the water was needed to meet the needs of senior water right holders.

West Side, CDWA and SDWA filed an ex parte application seeking a stay or temporary restraining order/order to show cause. While a petition for reconsideration was pending with the Board regarding the May curtailment letter, the Superior Court found that the letter was subject to a judicial determination as to whether it constituted a violation of the petitioner’s due process rights. It noted that there was the administrative process did not have to be exhausted before a temporary restraining order could be issued because the circumstances were such that irreparable harm would occur to the petitioners absent a temporary restraining order. Moreover the court found every day the letter remained in effect constituted a violation of the petitioners’ constitutional rights, so that a temporary restraining order was appropriate while the administrative process was proceeding.

With regard to the June curtailment letter, CDWA and SDWA were found to have adequately plead that the agencies’ landowners exercised pre-1914 appropriative and/or permit licenses rights that were subject to the directives of that letter, providing the petitioners standing to bring the ex parte application.

The court viewed the curtailment letter’s language, that which provided that the recipients were not entitled to divert water because that water was necessary to meet senior water right holders’ needs, as a declaration and determination by the Board of the recipients’ water rights priorities.

Further the court determined that the language in the letter instructing the recipients to “immediately stop diverting water” and complete an online Curtailment Certification Form documenting receipt of the curtailment letter and cessation of diversion, was not merely instructional as alleged by the Board. It viewed the letters as coercive, finding that they could reasonably be interpreted as an order, not a mere request for voluntary cessation of diversion activities.

Concluding that the curtailment letters resulted a violation of the petitioners’ due process rights in that there was a taking of the petitioners’ property rights without a pre-deprivation hearing, the court granted the ex parte application for a temporary restraining order/order to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

On March 27^th, 2015, California Governor Edmund G. Brown signed into law a $1 Billion emergency drought package. The emergency legislation (AB 91 and 92) provides funding for drought relief as well as to critical water projects in the state. Governor Brown states that “[t]his funding is just one piece of [a] much larger effort to help those most impacted by the drought and prepare the state for an uncertain future.” The bill will offer money for emergency food aid, drinking water, water recycling, conservation awareness, water system modeling, species tracking, and infrastructure and flood protection funding, to name a few.

The full text of AB 91 and 92 can be found at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/.

This all comes just weeks after the California State Water Resource Control Board (“Board”) expanded its Emergency Water Conservation Regulations. The Board now prohibits certain potable water uses such as washing down driveways, and washing a motor vehicle with a hose not equipped with a “shut-off nozzle”, and commercial changes such as restaurants only providing water upon request. (A list of all changes to these regulations, can be found at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/). Local agencies are able to fine property owners up to $500 a day for failure to implement conservation requirements of the Board.

More information about ongoing action in California pertaining to the drought can be found at http://ca.gov/drought/.

On July 15, the California State Water Boards passed Resolution No. 2014-0038 to adopt urban water control regulations. These regulations are aimed at conservation for urban residents, providing fines for using water inconsistent with the conservation measures. Among the measures aimed at curbing water use, the Water Board has proposed restricting activities on individuals including:

(1) The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures;

(2) The use of a hose that dispenses potable water to wash a motor vehicle, except where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle or device attached to it that causes it to cease dispensing water immediately when not in use;

(3) The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks; and

(4) The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature, except where the water is part of a recirculating system.

Performing any of the above activities subjects the offender to civil fines or criminal penalties (as a criminal infraction), punishable by a fine of up to five hundred dollars ($500) for each day in which the violation occurs.

Additionally, urban water suppliers and public water suppliers are required to implement water restrictions on outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water. Under the restrictions, ornamental landscaping and turf cannot be irrigated for no more than two days per week.

The regulations are planned to take effect on August 1, 2014 following review from the Office of Administrative Law, and the restrictions will be active for a period of 270 days (nine months), unless water availability conditions change.

As the drought in the Western US continues, communities can expect to see more of these types of water control regulations moving forward.

For more information, see the California Water Board’s Media Release.

On March 4–7, the 2014 United States Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (USCID) met in Sacramento California on the topic of “Groundwater Issues and Water Management—Strategies Addressing the Challenges of Sustainability.”  The Conference included our study of “Conjunctive Management: Changing Water Regulation and Evolving Strategies.” This paper focused on western States regulation of surface and groundwater conjunctively (or not), concluding with creative approaches for water users to employ should groundwater be restricted or limited.

The common themes emerging from the conference included: the increasing reliance on groundwater when surface water becomes limited, salinity concerns from groundwater, and questions on whether California will implement centralized State-control of the groundwater supply. Given the past history of water regulation tied to cyclical droughts, water users and irrigation districts are uncertain about planning for future infrastructure investments when there is the possibility of potential State regulation of their groundwater use.

From an Oregon perspective, State-controlled groundwater use is a daily reality, and you can ask anyone in the Klamath River Basin on their possible concerns of their wells being turned off by the State. For the second year in a row, the Governor declared a drought in much of the southern half of Oregon, and the Oregon Water Resources Department is initiating rulemaking to restrict water diversions in Klamath County. The conference also included tours of two irrigation districts, demonstrating on-call water delivery with a pressurized irrigation pilot program, and an automated lateral demonstration project. These two projects brought irrigation into the 21^st century with water scheduling as easy to order as an airplane ticket.

During the tours I had to opportunity to discuss with irrigation district staff about whether the pressing water shortage will change the regulatory framework moving forward, or whether the will decrease after the rains return. Ideas about increased groundwater recharge and storage during times of water surplus are forthcoming now, but once the water returns, will these ideas remain in the forefront? California water users will be faced with important decision in the coming months, many of which will be how to provide for the nation’s pantries when faced with little to no allocation of surface water. Much like the implementation of automated water delivery of water is moving into the 21^st century, California will likely be at the forefront of 21^st century water storage technology given the stakes of deciding otherwise.