Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers announced the repeal of the 2015 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. The controversial 2015 rule incorporated changes to 1986 and 1988 regulations and incorporated the “significant nexus” standard articulated by Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S.  715 (2006).  The 2015 change occurred through the addition of the defined term “neighboring” which broadened the interpretation of “adjacent” waters (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/29/2015-13435/clean-water-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states at 37105).

The 2015 rule was the subject of numerous lawsuits and had been found illegal by five federal courts including: (1) the District Court for the District of North Dakota; (2) the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia; (3) the District Court for the Southern District of Texas; (4) the District Court for the District of Oregon; and (5) the District Court for the District of Ohio. With the repeal of the 2015 rule, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will reinstate the 1986 and 1988 regulations in the interim while a new rule is promulgated. These regulations are encompassed in: 33 C.F.R. 328; 40 C.F.R. 110; 40 C.F.R. 112; 40 C.F.R. 116; 40 C.F.R. 117; 40 C.F.R. 122, 40 C.F.R. 230; 40 C.F.R. 232; 40 C.F.R. 300; 40 C.F.R. 302; and 40 C.F.R. 400. 

The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers cited four primarily reasons for repealing the 2015 rule:

1. The rule did not implement the legal limits on the scope of agency authority under the Clean Water Act as intended by Congress and reflected by Supreme Court Cases, including Rapanos;
2. The rule failed to adequately consider and accord due weight to Congressional policy in the Clean Water Act § 101(b) to “recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution” and “to plan the development and use . . .of land and water resources.” 33 U.S.C. 125(b);
3. The rule led agencies to interpret the rule in a way that pushed the limits of agency constitutional and statutory authority absent a clear statement from Congress, authorizing the encroachment of federal jurisdiction over traditional State land use planning authority; and
4. The distance-based limitations in the rule suffered procedural errors and lacked adequate support in the record.

With the repeal of the 2015 rule came the filing of lawsuits attacking the constitutionality of the 1986 and 1988 regulations. On the same day as the repeal was announced, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a Complaint on behalf of the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association challenging the reversal and the allegedly even broader interpretation of WOTUS employed under the 1986 and 1988 rules (https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/epa-sued-for-relying-on-illegal-rules-following-wotus-repeal/). The Complaint can be found at: https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/nm_cattle_growers_v_epa_complaint.pdf.

In contrast, a group of eleven environmental organizations filed a law suit in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina challenging the 2015 rule’s repeal based on allegations that it “strips away crucial clean water protections from rivers, lakes, streams, and other waters that feed drinking-water sources for 200 Million Americans” (https://defenders.org/newsroom/conservation-groups-challenge-repeal-of-clean-water-act-protections-federal-court).  In light of these seemingly opposite claims, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will certainly suffer attacks from all sides as they attempt to establish a clear and implementable regulatory definition of WOTUS that better effectuates the language, structure, and purpose of the Clean Water Act.  

The repeal of the 2015 rule was published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2019 and can be found at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-22/pdf/2019-20550.pdf.

(Photo Credit: https://www.tva.gov/Environment/Managing-the-River)

Starting September 29, 2019, natural gas providers in Oregon will have a new, renewable way of powering their customers’ homes. Governor Kate Brown executed a new law at the end of July, 2019 allowing capture, treatment, and conversion of methane found in wastewater into renewable natural gas (“RNG” or “biogas”), which can then be used to provide power to homes using existing infrastructure.

While converting wastewater to RNG is more expensive than fracking, biogas burns more cleanly than traditionally-obtained natural gas and provides environmental and health benefits by significantly reducing carbon emissions. Additionally, the law requires utility companies to “deliver service as cheaply as possible,” a contingency aimed at preventing a steep increase in price to the consumer.

Lane County, Oregon will begin construction of facilities to produce RNG next year. The biogas will then be sold to public utilities for distribution to their customers as early as 2021. Originally, Lane County planned to use the biogas as an alternative source of fuel for vehicles. Now, the practical potential to use biogas as a renewable resource has expanded.

With the passage of this law, biogas can be used to power homes and businesses. However, RNG has long been used throughout the State of Oregon as a source of renewable energy.

Since 1986, the Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant in Portland, Oregon has used biogas produced and captured at the plant to heat the plant itself, along with a nearby industrial roofing facility. Portland is also developing facilities to convert methane to biogas for use as an alternate source of fuel for diesel engine vehicles. The fuel will be sold to the public and used for City vehicles. Production is expected to begin in early 2020.

Threemile Canyon Farms near Boardman, Oregon started converting cow manure into electricity in 2009, and has expanded its facilities multiple times in the past decade. Currently, the dairy is the largest manure digester in the western United States. In 2017, it announced its plan to begin converting wastewater into RNG. In April, 2019, the Department of Environmental Quality approved Threemile’s application for a modified air quality permit, allowing it to move forward with the project.

The Durham Water Resource Recovery Facility in Washington County, Oregon repurposes wastewater in a variety of ways. The facility has captured phosphorus in wastewater and converted it to fertilizer since 2009. The fertilizer is then sold commercially around the Pacific Northwest. Since 2016, it has also converted wastewater and food grease into electricity that provides 60% of the plant’s power.

In these ways, Oregonians have been meeting Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act requirements through innovations that also provide additional revenue streams. We are excited to continue watching these industries move forward and spread to larger applications.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ blog for updates on these and other projects!

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.

The Public Trust Doctrine is seeping to California’s aquifers, bringing something like conjunctive surface water and groundwater management to the state. Conjunctive management is a legal approach to managing surface water and groundwater as an interconnected resource. Often states separate the regulation of groundwater from surface water. Conjunctive management attempts to reconnect the regulation of surface water and groundwater to better match real-world hydrological effects.

            Groundwater often supplies water to rivers, called “baseflow” within a “gaining reach,” and pumping can reduce groundwater’s contribution to surface streams. (See https://water.usgs.gov/edu/rivers-contain-groundwater.html). Likewise, surface water recharges aquifers in “losing reaches.” Regulating surface water and groundwater together is a relatively new development in water law, as legal systems catch up to modern scientific understanding. California has never adopted a groundwater code, let alone explicitly adopt conjunctive management.

            The passage of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in 2014 ushered in new planning and review scheme for groundwater use and management in the State. (https://www.water-law.com/groundwater-sustainability-plan-regulations/ ). The legislation attempts to prevent “undesirable effects” of groundwater overconsumption and bring groundwater use into a sustainable pattern. Cal. Water Code § 10721(x)(1)-(6).

            Regulation of surface water in California has been affected by the Public Trust Doctrine. Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Superior Court explicitly recognized that the Public Trust Doctrine would supplement statutes governing surface water. 33 Cal. 3d 419 (1983) (“Audubon”). (The Public Trust Doctrine is a well-established principle in California that the State hold certain resources in trust for the benefit of the public, and must take these principles into account when making natural resource decisions.) The case dealt with diversions from non-navigable streams flowing into Mono Lake that is “navigable” under state law. The Court found support for the application of the Public Trust Doctrine to non-navigable tributaries in previous cases like Audubon, showing that the doctrine can reach upstream to prevent harms to downstream navigable streams and lakes.

            In the recent decision Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board, California’s Third District Court of Appeals held that the Public Trust Doctrine can apply to groundwater that is hydraulically connected to navigable surface waters, like a “tributary” to the surface stream. 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 393 (2018) (“Control Board”). (Interestingly, this application of the Public Trust Doctrine implicitly favors surface water over groundwater sources, since the reasoning does not support finding surface water as “tributary” to groundwater sources).

            Until Control Board, the courts did not apply the Public Trust Doctrine to groundwater, likely on the basis that aquifers are non-navigable. The court, using the reasoning found in Audubon, found groundwater extraction in the region near the Scott River would reduce surface flows and harm public trust interests in the navigable river. In effect, the Public Trust Doctrine would extend to any groundwater source that provides water, or has stopped providing water, to a navigable surface water body.

            This follows a trend in applying surface water laws and regulations to groundwater. In Hawaii Wildlife Fund. v. County of Maui, the Ninth Circuit decided that discharges into groundwater could be regulated by the Clean Water Act. 881 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2018). Typically, the Clean Water Act does not apply to groundwater. See 80 Fed. Reg. 37054, 37099 (June 29, 2015). But since the aquifer was hydraulically connected to the Pacific Ocean, the aquifer was a “conduit” transporting pollutants to the sea. For more information, see: https://www.water-law.com/ninth-circuit-upholds-groundwater-conduit-theory/. Like the Public Trust Doctrine in Audubon, the Clean Water Act has begun to seep into aquifers as courts attempt to wrestle with modern hydrogeological science.

            Will these rules seep into aquifer pore spaces as well? As discussed in previous blog posts, California courts are currently deciding if aquifer pore spaces are public or private property. (See https://www.water-law.com/who-owns-an-aquifer/). The Control Board decision adds another layer to the aquifer questions in California: Is there a public trust aspect to aquifer pore spaces that potentially hold (or held) groundwater? Or does the doctrine remain confined to the groundwater alone? Keeping the doctrine out of the pore spaces would be difficult, as aquifers are complex systems of transresources. (Transresource systems are interconnected, yet distinct, resources in a dynamic relationship, see https://www.water-law.com/new-associate-attorney-jakob-wiley-defends-collective-aquifer-governance-agreements/.) Scientifically, aquifers and groundwater are in a constant dynamic relationship. The legal question remains open whether aquifer pore spaces are public, like water, or private, like the land and geological materials that make up aquifers.

            As the Public Trust Doctrine sinks into the aquifer, California courts and agencies may face pressure to implement “backdoor conjunctive management” through litigation and planning for Groundwater Sustainability Plans related to the Public Trust Doctrine. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in California will likely have to take the Public Trust Doctrine into account as they develop and review Groundwater Sustainability Plans and make land use decisions for groundwater development. (See https://californiawaterblog.com/2018/10/07/the-public-trust-and-sgma/ ). While never adopting a groundwater code or conjunctive management regulations, California may then begin to regulate surface water and groundwater as a connected resource.

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

On October 23, 2018, President Trump signed America’s Water Infrastructure Act (“AWIA”), also known as the Water Resource Development Act, into law. This bipartisan bill, which previously passed the House of Representatives on September 13, 2018 and the Senate on October 10, 2018, aims to improve dams, levees, ports, and waterways throughout the United States. It also amends the Safe Water Drinking and allocates funds toward more efficient and sustainable water quality control and management, particularly in underserved communities.

As its name might suggest, one of AWIA’s main goals is to improve America’s water systems. Under AWIA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will receive around $3.7 billion to plan, study, and develop water projects to alleviate strain on existing infrastructure. In the Northwest, the Port of Seattle is specifically slated to undergo construction to improve navigation channels, as are several other key ports around the United States. AWIA also has specific provisions that focus on flood protection measures on the Snake River and levee improvements in Clatsop County, Oregon, among others.

One of the most notable aspects of AWIA is how it addresses the ongoing water shortages in Northern California/Southern Oregon’s Klamath Basin. AWIA provides a much-needed $10 million annuity to the Bureau of Reclamation to address ongoing water issues in the Klamath Basin, and provides avenues for farmers to make use of Klamath Project canals to deliver water to their farms. AWIA also focuses on increasing efficiency and sustainability of hydropower and delivery of affordable electricity to those same farmers.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ blog for more updates on AWIA’s progress and impacts on water in the Northwest and the United States!

Attorney Sarah Liljefelt presented at Halfmoon’s Water Laws and Regulations seminar on June 7^th on the topic of Oregon Groundwater, teaching a group of engineers about groundwater ownership, regulation, and acquisition of groundwater use rights in Oregon. This week, on June 28^th, Sarah will present at the Oregon State Bar Environmental & Natural Resources Section’s “brownbag” continuing legal education seminar on the topic of groundwater regulation in the Klamath Basin in Oregon. Her co-presenter is Lisa Brown of WaterWatch, who will speak about groundwater in Harney County. If you are interested in attending, please visit the Section’s Events page or Schroeder Law Offices’ Coming Events page for more information. Sarah’s presentation materials are available on the Section’s Events page.

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

In an often-arid, agricultural community, nothing is more precious than water, particularly in drought years. However, flood years present their own set of challenges as well. When it comes to water allocation, it’s not just how much water that matters, but also when that water is received. Timing is as important as quantity when it comes to water delivery, especially when taking into account the impact snow pack and snow melt has on water supply.

For irrigators in Idaho’s Treasure Valley, this issue has long been a topic of discussion and debate. Water is accumulated and stored in three major reservoirs (Arrowrock, Anderson, and Lucky Peak) and is released throughout irrigation season to water users through a series of canals. Water is diverted to users at various points on the canals, at which time it begins to count toward a user’s annual allotment of water. This is typically not an issue during years of normal water accumulation and distribution. However, when above-average quantities of water accrue in the reservoirs, water must be released earlier in the spring to prevent overflow and flooding.

Early “flood water” releases are the root of the current conflict concerning regulation of water storage in Idaho. Water rights holders are allowed only a certain amount of water under the conditions of their permits and/or certificates. When water is released out of storage earlier in the year, Idaho Water Resources Department advises that the meter starts running regardless of whether or not the water right holder is ready to turn the water into its irrigation facilities. For senior users (holders of rights with earlier priority dates), this means seniors risk running out of water later in the season. Typically, if a senior is not receiving their allowed quantity of water as flows decrease in the hotter months, the senior is able to make a water call on junior priority water right holders. However, if, due to the early release of water, the senior has technically received the storage release of their senior priority water, the senior could be left high and dry.

This issue has been litigated in the Idaho courts as a contested case since 2013, with argument before the Idaho Supreme Court scheduled to occur on June 20, 2018. However, on June 6, 2018, a joint legislative committee met and unanimously called for Governor Butch Otter to hold a special session to pass legislation that would add a new Section 42-115 to the Idaho Code. Section 42-115 would ensure that future water storage projects do not interfere with existing reservoirs. While this proposed legislation will not fully resolve the ongoing issues, nor constitute a settlement between the parties, it may be a positive first step toward resolution.

Stay tuned to Schroder Law Offices’ blog for updates on this legislation, settlement, and other water law topics!

Water use conditions in the Klamath Basin continue to worsen in 2018. On March 8, 2018, a water “call” was made in the Klamath Basin, and the Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) began the validation process for shutting off junior water users. Within the week, on March 13^th, Governor Kate Brown declared a drought in Klamath County, Oregon, the first drought declaration since 2015, coming much sooner than hoped or predicted.

In April, OWRD began regulating off water users in the Klamath Basin. On April 13, the Oregon Water Resources Commission approved temporary emergency rules granting a preference to water rights for human consumption and stock watering in Klamath County. The rules allow certain water users with water rights for human consumption and stock watering to continue using surface water for such uses despite OWRD’s regulation off of water use rights. Exempt uses of groundwater, including domestic and stock uses, may also continue despite OWRD’s regulation. The Commission passed similar temporary rules granting the same preferences during the last drought period.

Also in April, Klamath Project water users found themselves unable to begin irrigating due to a federal court injunction. The Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes in northern California previously brought suit against the Bureau of Reclamation and National Marine Fisheries Service in federal court, alleging mismanagement of the Klamath River below the four major dams lead to an outbreak of C. shasta, a parasite that infects juvenile Coho salmon. The court entered an injunction requiring 50,000 acre feet of water stored in Upper Klamath Lake to flush and dilute the parasite until most of the salmon have migrated to the ocean, usually occurring after the beginning of June. Irrigators and irrigation districts petitioned the court to lift the injunction, but the court declined to do so in 2018. For more information, see May 1 article from the Capital Press, Judge upholds Klamath River Injunction.

In May, the Klamath Irrigation District brought suit against OWRD, seeking to compel the agency to take exclusive charge of Upper Klamath Lake to distribute water according to the district’s water use rights determined by the agency in the Klamath Basin Adjudication. The district alleges that it disagrees with the Bureau of Reclamation and PacifiCorps as to the proper distribution of water, and those entities are releasing without valid water use rights, causing injury to the district and its patrons. 

Also in May, the Klamath Tribes filed suit in federal court in northern California against the Bureau of Reclamation, US Fish & Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service, alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Protection Act by failing to maintain appropriate elevations in Upper Klamath Lake. The Tribes seek declaration of the alleged violations, an injunction against further jeopardy and habitat modification, and for the agencies to reinitiate consultation resulting in a new biological opinion.

Finally, on April 27, 2018, the Klamath County Circuit Court issued a Case Management Order in the Klamath Adjudication, outlining a schedule for hearing the first substantive exceptions filed with the court since the judicial phase of the adjudication began in 2013. First the court will decide exceptions made against federally reserved water claims, excluding Tribal claims. Next, the court will decide exceptions against Walton and Klamath Termination Act claims. Third, the court will decide exceptions to Tribal claims. Numerous exceptions have been filed with the court, alleging OWRD awarded too much water to these claims, ignoring the pertinent legal standards for deciding these claims, to the detriment of other Klamath Basin water users. A decision on the first group of exceptions is not anticipated until 2019.

The Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement was terminated on December 28, 2017. The agreement called for retirement of irrigation rights to increase stream flows into Upper Klamath Lake by 30,000 acre feet per year. This “retirement” (or cancellation) of water use rights, which was negotiated largely in the absence of upper basin irrigators, was viewed unfavorably by many of the affected irrigators, and was ultimately not funded by Congress. Discussions about alternative agreements continue to this date.

Overall, the return of drought conditions, coupled with fish disease and five years of merely procedural rulings in the Klamath Basin Adjudication, have left water users in the Klamath Basin in serious trouble.

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

Written by Alyssa Holland, Lisa Mae Gage, and Lisa Kane

Water Week 2018 is currently underway as water organizations across the country gather in Washington, D.C. to advocate the importance of water protection and conservation with hopes of ultimately elevating water to a national priority. Organizations in the water sector are using Water Week to ramp up their efforts to educate policymakers about the need for funding to benefit water infrastructure. Many organizations are collaborating for Water Week, including National Association of Clean Water Agencies (“NACWA”), Water Environment Federation (“WEF”), American Water Works Association (“AWWA”), and the National Water Resources Association (“NWRA”), for example.

A few main events will take place during Water Week:

• On April 17-18, 2018 the National Policy Fly-In:
  An event to provide the public with the opportunity to voice concerns and challenges to their policy makers.
• April 17-19, 2018: Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association (“WWEMA”) 45th Washington Forum:
  “Effectively Communicating Change at the National, State, and Local Level,” a discussion regarding changes happening in Washington, D.C. and to the nationwide water infrastructure, environmental and public health protection, and legislative and regulatory changes that will impact the water sector.
• On April 19, 2018 the WateReuse Association Water Week 2018 Congressional Briefing:
  Four (4) different communities across the country will be highlighted for their use of water recycling and the local economic benefits that encourage other communities to do the same.

While each organization has a slightly different mission, each has a goal of advancing education regarding water issues and returning to their communities with the priority of educating the general public on the same issues. One of the main events, the Congressional Briefing, will directly discuss tools used in arid states (such as one of our main states of practice, Nevada) to address water scarcity and a way for communities to better manage their local water resources to help spur economic growth and plan for the future.

Schroeder Law Offices Nevada attorney Therese Ure also attends and hosts local conferences in Nevada to continue education regarding how to support the community’s resource challenges and even more particularly, how to support Northern Nevada’s agriculture industry. Click here to see our coming events for local education on the topic. Although attending these events may not be a possibility for everyone, we should all use Water Week as a time to reflect on how valuable water is to our everyday lives and to look for ways to conserve and protect water within our own communities.

World Water Day is an event hosted annually by the United Nations on March 22nd. Each year the event has a theme, and 2018’s theme is “Nature for Water.” Events surrounding World Water Day will focus on nature and how we can use our natural resources to overcome the water challenges of the 21st century. There are water-related crises occurring around the world caused by both environmental damage and climate change. World Water Day 2018 will explore how nature-based solutions have the potential to solve many of the challenges we currently face as a global society. Click here for a list of events occurring for World Water Day across the globe.

The headline facts for World Water Day this year focus not only on water demand, but water availability and water quality. Here are a few of their headline facts on water demand, availability, and quality:

• Demand: 2.1 billion people lack access to safely managed drinking water services
• Availability: Today, around 1.9 billion people live in potentially severely water-scarce areas. By 2050 this could increase to around 3 billion people.
• Quality: Globally, over 80% of the wastewater generated by society flows back into the environment without being treated or reused.

In the United States, most regions have water districts and agencies that oversee water use as well as its reuse, helping to replenish local resources while monitoring for drought or scarcity issues. While this may be true for our country, United Nation’s Water (“UN Water”) works to bring awareness to those places in which regulations are not as well-monitored or addressed, and also brings awareness to improvements that can be made in developed regions. While World Water Day 2018 will bring focus to these issues, more research is required for solutions that impact all corners of the globe. On March 22nd, expect the World Water Development Report to be released highlighting the performance, impact, and scalability relevant to the nature-based solutions thus far.

The UN Water online database contains resources regarding sustainable development goals for clean water and sanitation for further information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned as Schroeder Law Offices brings you updates!

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

On January 23, 2018, after more than 10 years of discussion and revision, the Washington Department of Ecology adopted the Reclaimed Water Rule. The Rule will go into effect on February 23, 2018. You can read the Rule in its entirety here.

Reclaimed water has long been used in the State of Washington for industrial, commercial, and construction purposes, as well as a way to replenish wetlands and aquifers. The Revised Code of Washington Chapter 90.46, put into effect in 1995, governs the acquisition, use, and treatment standards for reclaimed water, and establishes the permitting process for both wastewater discharge and reclaimed water use. The goal of the newly-enacted Reclaimed Water Rule is to work hand-in-hand with this existing legislation to streamline the process of acquiring permits and to make clear the methods and standards of treatment required in order for wastewater to be deemed acceptable for commercial, industrial, and institutional uses.

By making the route to reclaiming water more straightforward, the Department of Ecology hopes to encourage water users to limit their discharge of wastewater back into the environment and decrease overall draw from groundwater sources to preserve limited water resources, particularly during the dry summer months. If reclaimed water can be used in the place of potable water for purposes like flushing toilets or watering lawns, the impact of these activities can be substantially mitigated. A good overview of the potential uses and benefits of reclaimed water can be found on the Department’s website.

One of the main concerns about the Reclaimed Water Rule, and a major reason why it remained on the back burner for the better part of 12 years, is the potential for infringement upon senior water users’ rights. By reclaiming water that would otherwise flow into streams, lakes, or aquifers and reusing it without it being reintroduced into the originating source of water, the amount of water available to water right holders that had access to those “returns” could be diminished. As a result, the Rule was amended to include provisions for compensation and mitigation should such infringement occur; however, consistent with procedure for issuing all water right permits, no permits shall be issued to projects that impair the rights of senior water users.

While reclaimed water is not designated as drinkable, it is still subjected to strenuous testing and treatment processes similar to those which drinking water undergoes. Following initial treatment at a water treatment plant, wastewater is further filtered, disinfected, and repeatedly tested to ensure that it can be safely introduced into the environment. Once it has been approved as safe, reclaimed water can be used to irrigate crops, fight fires, clean streets, and control dust, among other uses. The Washington State Department of Health issued a “Frequently Asked Questions” memorandum last summer, (available on their website) that briefly details the public health protections covered in the Reclaimed Water Rule.

If you are interested in learning more about the Reclaimed Water Rule and the permitting process, the Washington Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance has assembled an overview that provides greater detail about the Rule and the application process.

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

The state of Nevada began regulating water use through the enactment of the water code in 1905.  Under the 1905 water code, statutory regulation for surface water began.  Later, in 1913 statutes came into play for artesian groundwater rights of use, and in 1939 we see statutes for percolating groundwater rights use. Water rights established prior to those dates are known as “vested water rights” or “vested water claims”.

In order to determine the extent and validity to a vested water use claim, the Nevada State Engineer follows an adjudication procedure outlined in Nevada Revised Statutes wherein the State Engineer issues a Notice of Order for Taking Proofs. This Notice alerts the public that the office of the State Engineer is preparing to review and analyze all claims to vested water rights and determine the validity and extent of each claim. The State Engineer provides a deadline for claimants to file their proofs of appropriation for that basin that is being adjudicated. The State Engineer then carefully considers each claim, with its supporting documentation, and makes a determination of each and every claim to a vested right in that basin.

Historically, there were no deadlines to file a proof of appropriation to claim a vested right to use water until the State Engineer began adjudicating specific basins. While many groundwater basins and surface water systems are adjudicated, there are many that have yet to undergo the process.  Prior to the 79^th Nevada Legislative Session, it was not until the State Engineer issued a Notice of Order for Taking Proofs to Determine Water Rights wherein a deadline to file Proofs of Appropriation was set. Senate Bill 270 has amended the statute to set a deadline of December 31, 2027 for any and all proofs of appropriation to be filed in any basin, whether or not an adjudication has been ordered for that basin. The newly revised statute reads “If a claimant fails to file such proof on or before December 31, 2027, the claim shall be deemed to be abandoned.” To read the full text, please visit https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/79th2017/Bills/SB/SB270_EN.pdf.

The State Engineer will be required to provide notice of the new deadline in the Newspaper of every groundwater basin in the state and online, and the deadline is still 10 years away. However, after this date no proofs of appropriation will be accepted by the State Engineer, with the only exception of Federal agencies claiming reserved rights. Anyone who believes they may have a claim to a vested right will need to keep this very important deadline in mind. For more information on what is required to support your proof of appropriation, go to https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-533.html#NRS533Sec115 or http://www.water-law.com/water-rights-articles/nevada-water-rights/.

The issue of updating ownership of water rights of use continues to rear its ugly head in the context of water right forfeiture proceedings. I can’t stress enough how important it is in Nevada to update ownership records with the Nevada Division of Water Resources. Currently, NRS 533.384 requires buyer to file ownership update information with the State Engineer.

Thus, when buying property, it is not enough to record your deed with the county, you must also update the records for water rights of use with the Nevada Division of Water Resources by filing a report of conveyance and abstract of title (these are specific forms with instructions available on the NDWR website). If there is a title issue that might take you some time or assistance to sort out, then file a Request for Correspondence (another form) with NDWR so you at least receive some kind of notice as to matters relating to your water rights. Don’t miss these important notices putting your water rights of use in jeopardy by failing to update ownership records!

Some title issues that come up in Reports of Conveyance and Abstracts of Title include deeds that inadvertently do not transfer all the property, deeds that have different names or entities thus causing additional supporting research to show they are one-in-the-same, having to research title back to the original water right holder, and having to sift through probate documents to show a transfer in ownership, to name a few. Regardless of the issue that needs resolving, now is the time to diligently check your rights of use and ensure you are in compliance with NRS 533.384.

Co-Authored By: Attorney Therese Ure & Lisa Mae Gage

In August 2015 the United State Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) put their stamp of approval on the Waters of the United States (“WOTUS”) final rule. The WOTUS rule significantly expanded the definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, granting federal regulatory control over virtually all waters in the United States. Many groups opposed this rule, arguing that it expands federal jurisdiction, resulting in the imposition of burdensome requirements on agricultural producers.

On February 28, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Administrator of the EPA and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to review the WOTUS rule to ensure the nation’s navigable waters are protected, as well as to promote economic growth and show due regard for the roles of Congress and the States. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/28/presidential-executive-order-restoring-rule-law-federalism-and-economic.

President Trump also directed the administrators, along with the heads of all executive departments and agencies, to consider interpreting the term “navigable waters” as it is defined in 33 U.S.C. 1362(7), and consistent with the opinion of late Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Considering these interpretations, one might construe “navigable waters” as waters in the United States, including the territorial seas, that are “navigable in fact” or readily able of being so.

This executive order was preceded by a House Resolution . See https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/152/text. The Resolution states WOTUS should be withdrawn or vacated as the EPA and Corps did not follow proper procedural steps and claimed expansive jurisdiction that infringes upon State authority.

Several agricultural groups are strongly supporting the House Resolution and the Executive Order. As water is a valuable resource to all, regulation upon it must be closely scrutinized and controlled. According to the agricultural community, President Trump’s executive order and the House Resolution regarding WOTUS is a welcomed relief.

by Lisa Kane and Therese Ure

The 2017 Nevada Legislative Session is currently in motion; the 79th legislative session began on February 6th and will continue through June of 2017. Meetings are being held daily by the senate and assembly committees as they review proposed changes to Nevada legislation. There are several already-proposed bills on water law that may affect water rights users in the state (click here for a more comprehensive list), however, a couple of new bills have been introduced in the past week that seek to address different water-related matters.

Assembly Bill 209 (AB 209), proposed by Assemblyman James Oscarson of Nye County, is drafted to address issues with extensions on groundwater rights and forfeiture prevention. The bill seeks to revise provisions concerning water law in the State of Nevada that would require the State Engineer to, under certain circumstances, extend the time necessary to work a forfeiture of certain water rights. The full text for this proposed bill can be found here.

Senate Bill 134 (SB 134), proposed by Senator Pete Goicoechea of Eureka County and Senator Aaron Ford of Clark County, was also newly introduced in the past week and focuses on providing legislative direction to the State Engineer in regards to water applicants and conflicts with existing water rights. Specifically, SB 134 would authorize the State Engineer to determine if such a conflict exists and if so, to impose a monitoring, management and mitigation plan upon applicants whose requested use conflicts with existing rights. The bill also requires that conflicts be eliminated in order for the water use application to be permitted. The full text for this proposed bill can be found here. While the current water law already requires the State Engineer to evaluate and not approve applications that conflict with existing rights, this legislation add the ability to impose monitoring, management, and mitigation plans (aka “3M Plans”) as a way to offset conflicts.

The Nevada State Legislature’s website provides session information as well as bill draft requests, fact sheets, bill text and further information. The Legislature’s calendar also provides links to daily meetings and allows the public to view live sessions across the state. To keep apprised of bill progress or view active work session agendas visit the legislature website at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/.

During the month of January, the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association is hosting a series of workshops around the state regarding grazing permits on federal lands. The Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service agencies (and other agency representatives) will be giving presentations on their plans to implement land use changes that have been established for managing federal lands.

Materials to be reviewed during the meetings include the January 5, 2015 Order No. 336 by the Secretary of the Interior regarding Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management and Restoration policy and strategies, as well as resource management plans as drafted by the BLM. Attendees are strongly encouraged to review the materials to be informed prior to attending the meetings.

There will be five workshops beginning in mid-January in locations across the state; Nevada. Meetings will be held in Winnemucca, Elko, Ely, Battle Mountain and Fallon, more information regarding location and time can be found below or by contacting the Nevada Cattlemen’s Executive Director, Kaley Sproul, at (775) 738-3214.

• January 17: 2-6:30pm, Winnemucca, Humboldt Coop Extension

• January 18: 2-6:30pm, Elko, Great Basin College (HSCI Room #108)

• January 19: 2-6:30pm, Ely, Bristlecone Convention

• January 20: 2-6:30pm, Battle Mountain, Battle Mountain Civic

• January 21: 12 to 4:30pm, Fallon, Old Post Office

The upcoming 2017 Nevada Legislative Session includes proposed water law changes that could affect water rights users across the state. The 79th legislative session, which starts on February 6, 2017 and ends on June 5, 2017, contains a number of proposed water law changes. It appears there will be four senate bills submitted by the Nevada State Engineer and Nevada Division of Water Resources during the session, as well as five bills from the Nevada Legislative Committee to Study water, and five bills from individual legislators and committees.

The four senate bills to be introduced to the 2017 legislative session that include potential changes to water law in Nevada are as follows: Senate Bill 47 (SB47) proposes various changes to the appropriation of water; Senate Bill 51 (SB51) proposes various changes to the adjudication of vested water rights; and Senate Bills 73 and 74 (SB73 and SB74) propose the revision of various provisions relating to water rights and use in the State of Nevada. Any pre-filed bills, which include the senate bills listed above, are available for public viewing on the Nevada Legislature’s website at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/79th2017/Reports/Prefiled.cfm. By clicking on the link for the proposed bill, users can view the full bill text as introduced to the Senate as well as the bill’s history of hearings or votes as the session moves along. These bills are also referred to the Senate Natural Resources Committee for review.

While proposed bills could bring changes to water law at a statewide level in Nevada, county officials and other local groups are also working to develop local water management plans. The Nevada Farm Bureau, for example, has a collected a group of interested volunteers to participate in a Water Discussion group for water management plans specific to volunteers’ areas around the state. The Bureau also continues to encourage interested parties to contact them for more information regarding such discussion. According to the Pahrump Valley Times, officials in Nye County have conducted studies on a number of wells in the Pahrump Valley that have the potential to go dry. Further, studies are ongoing in the Humboldt River Basin and being conducted by USGS and DRI. It appears scientists are looking to understand the groundwater system better.

Studies such as those being conducted in Nye County will likely continue across the state in preparation for recommendations on approval or denial of the proposed water law changes in Nevada’s 79th Legislative Session in 2017. Counties and hydrographic basins may have different needs based on appropriation and water sources available. The interested public can keep current with session information and the drafting and approval of bills as the session persists at the legislature’s website: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/. County and city papers also continue to publish information regarding more local sessions.

Due to recent crackdowns by the State Engineer in Nevada regarding both forfeitures and cancellations of groundwater rights not in full use, it is important to keep records of your water use.  One method to show use is by recording your meter readings.  This is important both for permitted wells and certificated wells respectively, to provide evidence to support a Proof of Beneficial Use as well as evidence of continued use.^[1]

Many groundwater permits/certificates require monthly, quarterly, or annual reporting to the Nevada Division of Water Resources.  If your use so requires recording and reporting, make sure you meet your specified deadlines to file your meter reading reports.  If your wells are not metered, please be sure to verify whether you are required to maintain a meter.  We predict that nearly all wells in Nevada will eventually require metering.

Schroeder Law Offices provides a routine monthly meter reading reminder email as a service to our clients.  If you are a client of ours and wish to receive a monthly meter reading reminder, please request to be added to the “Well Meter Reminder” list by emailing request to counsel@water-law.com.

^[1] Attorney Therese Ure assisted in the drafting of the legal issues discussed in this blog.

World Water Week 2016 is currently underway in Stockholm, Sweden, an annual event hosted by the Stockholm International Water Institute (“SIWI”).  World Water Week is the annual focal point for global water issues, consisting of more than 140 events covering a range of subjects.  The main theme of the 2016 event is “Water for Sustainable Growth,” a follow-up to the previous year’s topics regarding Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”) as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.  The SDGs, as established by the United Nations at World Water Day in March 2016, focus on water and jobs as one of the keys to future water issues: “making a contribution to better the lives of millions of people by maintaining and creating meaningful jobs related to water and wastewater development, service provision, protection and management.”

Experts attending the event address the value of water and a shared sustainability on a global scale.  Water and climate experts alike call for a Green Water Initiative, using the Water Revolution in Africa as an example.  Large parts of the world are struggling to adapt to a drier reality, but challenges are especially dire in Africa’s drylands.  Developmental options such as rainwater harvesting and other “greenwater” management methods are being suggested to combat the scarcity of water and help to build water resilience for food security and human well-being.

As organizations such as SIWI gather to address and make suggestions regarding water resilience, local concerns echo global concerns.  Water shortages in the State of Nevada raise concern among residents and domestic well owners; more than 20 percent of water basins are over-appropriated – there is more water appropriated on paper than sources to supply it.  Nevada’s Legislative Subcommittee to Study Water, whom held their most recent meeting on August 26, 2016 (details found here), has issued water-conscious statements recommending that local land-use decisions be tied to sustainable water supplies and that water management recognize the connection between surface and groundwater sources.

SIWI’s World Water Week is one of many global events organized with the goal of generating knowledge and power regarding water issues, hosting a number of decision-makers and water professionals in discussions about climate change, energy, sanitation, food, conflict resolution, water management and more.  A few of World Water Week’s highlighted topics (i.e. rainwater harvesting) can be found at http://www.worldwaterweek.org/programme/#since-1991, with resources available in the program archive.