While not a new topic on our blog, we wanted to take this opportunity to remind you that Nevada’s vested water right sunset date of December 31, 2027 is fast approaching!  This deadline is the “last call” to file for any pre-water code rights. If you know that your predecessors were irrigating or watering their livestock as a “grandfathered right” on property that you own or use, and you do not have a vested or permitted water right on file with the State Engineer’s office, now is the time to determine whether or not you have the historical support to file a vested proof of appropriation.  While “grandfathered” rights imply a historical right, calling it a “grandfathered” right, in and of itself, does not equate to a legal right to use water.  The historical use must pre-date the water code.  In Nevada, these water code dates are: 1905 for surface water, 1913 for artesian or percolating water, and 1939 for groundwater developments. 

When filing a vested proof of appropriation, make sure that your water use has adequate evidentiary support to predate the water code. To assist you, we recently updated an article entitled, “How to Research Your Land and Water”. This article provides guidance on how to research the information necessary to support a vested proof of appropriation.  Now is not too late to start this process!

Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. attorney Caitlin Skulan made her third appearance at the annual Nevada Agricultural Fair in Douglas County, Nevada.  Attorney Skulan served on the 2024 Fair Board as Treasurer.  In 2022, The Fair moved from Carson City, Nevada to Douglas County in order to take advantage of the larger fairgrounds and room for growth.

            The Fair’s primary events are a four-day youth livestock show and three-day “MAYHEMilition” that includes lawn mower racing, figure-eight demolition car racing, and a “tuff truck” competition.  The “MAYHEMilition” serves as the primary fundraiser for the youth livestock show. Local sponsors donate other funds. In the past three years, popularity and traction for the evening festivities has grown. This year, the grandstand was sold out both Friday and Saturday night!  Fair organizers expect the Fair to grow further in 2025. 

            During the day, the focus is livestock, livestock, livestock.  Regional 4-H, Grange, FFA, and Keystone Agricultural Society members partook in showing seven animal types. Animal types included cattle, swine, lambs, goats, rabbits, poultry, and horses. Each type of livestock is further divided by species as well as by purpose (breeder, dairy, or market).  The show concluded with the Sunday livestock auction, directed by Attorney Skulan. The auction had a record number of buyers for the Fair, that resulted in great support for the youth selling their market animals. 

            The Fair is a culmination of a year’s worth of constant efforts for organization, securing vendors, sponsor outreach, and funding.  The Fair Board, with the able assistance of Attorney Skulan, continues to grow and improve the event and is looking forward to an even better Fair in July 2025.

In 2019, we previously posted a blog on the Public Trust Doctrine in Nevada which you can find here. Since then, the Nevada Supreme Court made its decision in Mineral Cty. v. Lyon Cty., 136 Nev. 503, 473 P.3d 418 (2020). We provide a brief recap of the Public Trust Doctrine and an update on the status of the doctrine in Nevada.

The Nevada Supreme Court formally recognized the Public Trust Doctrine in 2011 in Lawrence v. Clark County. However, the Court in Lawrence only recognized the doctrine in the context of navigable waters. In Mineral County, the Court later clarified that the doctrine applies to all waters within the state, whether navigable or non-navigable. The Court also adopted the position that the Public Trust Doctrine has been in place in Nevada since statehood, despite the doctrine not being formally acknowledged until Lawrence.

What is the Public Trust Doctrine?

The public trust doctrine “generally acts as a restraint on the state in alienating public trust resources.” Id. at 509. However, arguably the doctrine has broader implications than only the alienation of public resources by the State. The doctrine enshrines the principle that the public trust resources are owned by the State, and the State cannot use them for just any purpose. Rather, the State acts as a fiduciary. This means the State must use and maintain public trust resources for the benefit of the public. Therefore, because the State owns all the water of the State and holds those waters in trust for the public, the State has a duty to protect the water from misuse or contamination. As an acting fiduciary, the State’s protection is for the benefit of current and future residents of the State.

How does the decision in Mineral County affect your water rights?

The Court in Mineral County found that even though the Public Trust Doctrine “applies to all waters within the state, including those previously allocated under prior appropriation,” the doctrine does not allow for the reallocation of rights settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation. Id. at 506. The Court reasoned that the “state’s statutory water scheme [which is based on the doctrine of prior appropriation] is consistent with the public trust doctrine by requiring the State Engineer to consider the public interest when allocating and administering water rights.” Id. / The Court went on to explain, “in recognizing the significance of finality in water rights, our Legislature has expressly prohibited reallocating adjudicated water rights that have not been otherwise abandoned or forfeited in accordance with the state’s water statutes.” Id.

Due to the Mineral County decision, courts in Nevada will recognize the Public Trust Doctrine as it applies to the disposition of water rights by the State under the state’s statutory scheme. The Court in Mineral County cautioned “that rights holders must continually use water beneficially or lose those rights.” Id. at 518. If you need assistance ensuring your water is placed to beneficial use, research attorneys that can help you comply with State regulations.

Are you looking for ways to support your local agricultural community this summer? Reno is crawling with local farmers markets that feature products from local farmers and ranchers. On April 21, a new farm stand by farmer owned Reno Food Systems opened. This program directs education on agricultural policies as part of its market program. Reno Food Systems farm stand is open on Sundays from 3 to 7 pm. Also, be sure to stop by the Riverside Farmers Market, located at Idlewild Park. This farmers market is open year-round on Sundays, and their central location allows a walk along the Truckee River after browsing the vendors. Although we would venture to say fresh produce is the best part of local markets, you can also find household items and handmade gifts at these Reno farmers markets.

Supporting members of our community that provide underappreciated products, such as a healthy food system, is something Schroeder Law Offices encourages. Nevada has a thriving agricultural community, and this is in large part maintained by protecting our water resources. At Schroeder Law Offices, we strive to provide farmers and ranchers with tools to maintain their businesses and support their local communities.

            On January 25-27, 2024, Schroeder Law Offices Attorney Caitlin Skulan attended the Mid-Pacific Water Users Conference in Reno, NV.  The Conference Board opened the event by boasting the largest attendance to date at the 56^th annual conference. Over 300 registrants attended the conference, more than 80 of which were from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (“Bureau”).

            Bureau Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton welcomed conference attendees. Touton is the first woman, Filippino Federal Commissioner in the United States.  Touton’s opening presentation centered around the Bureau’s big announcement for the California Great Basin Region.  The long-standing Regional Director, Earnest Conant is retiring! Conant will be succeeded as Regional Director for the California Great Basin Region by Karl Stock.  Conant will continue to serve as Senior Advisor to Touton for a short period before retiring fully from the Bureau.

Regional Updates

            In addition to the Bureau’s announcement of Conant’s Retirement, the conference program included updates on the Newlands Project and the status of various water reservoirs and river supply outlooks in the Region. Among the updates was that for Truckee and Carson Rivers.  The Bureau’s regional staff reported precipitation this year was at 50-70% of average, compared to the 200-300% the region experienced in 2023.  However, Regional staff were not overly concerned with water supply for the irrigation season as last year brought 650,000 Acre-feet of inflow in Lahantan Reservoir. As of late January, the reservoir was at about 70% capacity. The Bureau also reported Tahoe storage at 70% and Stampede Reservoir at 88% full.  The Bureau expects the reservoirs to continue to fill as the winter/spring runoff adds to inflows.  

            All-in-all, we at Schroeder Law Offices are happy to pass on the positive report for the water supply outlook for the 2024 irrigation season.  We additionally wish Mr. Conant the best in his retirement and look forward to working with Mr. Stock regarding any future Bureau-related projects.

How is it that after another heavy snowfall in the Sierra, the Nevada Irrigation District (“NID”) declared a water shortage emergency within its’ service boundaries? In March of 2024, NID’s General Manager’s Newsletter requested customers cut their water use by 20% for the remainer of the year. Although the reduction is voluntary, water users in Placer and Nevada County face a limited water supply.

This declared “water reduction” emergency results from unanticipated infrastructure repairs in the Sierra Nevada headwaters. Although a sufficient water supply exists in the headwaters, a landslide produced severe damage to the Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s (“PG&E”) portion of the South Yuba Canal. Conveyance to foothill reservoirs is near impossible until repairs are made to the canal.

The South Yuba Canal acts as the primary source of water to NID’s Deer Creek System and Scotts Flat Reservoir. Given the damage, the District has limited access to normal watershed runoff and cannot recharge the South Yuba or Drum Canals. Further, a PG&E powerhouse “sustained a failure that curtailed flows into the Drum Canal that provides water to Rollins Reservoir and the Bear River”. According to the March newsletter, the PG&E should complete repairs by June 8th.

What About Irrigators in the NID?

With the irrigation season scheduled to start on April 15th, the timing poses huge inconveniences to agricultural customers. Irrigators in the District must rely on existing stored water in the Scotts Flat and Rollins reservoirs. The NID Board of Directors expressed concerns about relying upon limited water storage if the outage extends into the summer. NID estimated that any delays in repairing the South Yuba Canal will result in mandatory water restrictions.

NID provides irrigation and drinking water to more than 25,000 customers. This District is also a leading water agency in the production of clean hydropower. Many individuals and companies will be greatly affected by this situation. Lake levels over the summer could also be affected.

If you are affected by water shortage consider this article on how to locate a water rights attorney.

Conjunctive management recognizes there may be a hydrological connection between groundwater and surface water within an area. This means, drawing down groundwater may affect the availability of surface water, and vice versa. In prior appropriation states like Nevada, where senior water rights have priority, surface water rights will generally trump groundwater right. In January 2024, the Nevada Supreme Court weighed in on Nevada’s conjunctive management law.

Points of Contention

With limited water availability in the arid west, it is increasingly necessary to manage both groundwater and surface water as a single management unit to protect senior water rights. However, there is an understandable reluctance on the part of some junior water rights holders to curtail water use that has gone unchecked for decades.

One point of contention is whether the best available science supports the curtailment of a junior water right– does the best available science support finding a specific groundwater use is depleting the source of a senior surface water right? How much can a junior water rights holder still use and not affect the senior water rights? The Nevada State Engineer will determine what constitutes “best available science.”  Is it a full-blown scientific model, or will something less suffice?

A second point of contention has been whether the State Engineer has the authority to manage the waters of the State conjunctively. We finally have the answer: In January 2024, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its decision in Sullivan v. Lincoln County Water District recognizing the power of the State Engineer to conjunctively manage surface waters and groundwater. Case Nos. 84739, 84741, 84742, 84809, 85137, 2024 Nev. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 25, 2024).

The Court’s Decision

In reaching their decision, the Court primarily relied on provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) (state.nv.us) prohibiting the impairment of vested/existing water rights, “regardless of the water source.” The Court noted that “[a]ll statutorily granted water rights in Nevada are given subject to existing rights” and “[b]ecause vested water rights by definition exist prior to the grant of statutorily granted water rights… no statutorily granted water right may impair vested water rights.” Id. (citations omitted). In sum, the Court found that no matter the source, ground or surface water, the State Engineer must not allow any impairment of vested water rights. Hence, the State Engineer must have the power to conjunctively manage both sources of water in Nevada.

The Court’s decision also recognizes the legislative policy declared at NRS 533.024 “which require the State Engineer to ‘consider the best available science in rendering decisions concerning the available surface and underground sources of water’ and ‘[t]o manage conjunctively the appropriation, use and administration of all waters.” As such, the Court notes these policy declarations support the finding that the State Engineer has power to conjunctively manage the waters of the State of Nevada, decisively settling years of litigation over the matter.

What’s Next?

For years the State Engineer attempted to conjunctively manage but was hamstrung by scientific uncertainty regarding the hydrological connection between groundwater and surface water sources, leading to exhaustive litigation concerning the State Engineer’s management orders. The new Model on the Humbold River, reportedly nearing completion, will be integrated into the State Engineer’s future orders that will likely be further tested in the courts. Likewise, submission of Scientific Reports in the Lower White River Flow system were presented to the Nevada Court that will now determine if these reports are sufficient substantial evidence to support the State Engineer’s regulation orders.  It will be interesting to follow the litigation to see what level of “best available science” will withstand the scrutiny of the courts.

You might be interested in this article about Nevada Water Law.

Although the State of Nevada is well known for its’ economic sector in gaming, agricultural production is critical to many Nevada residents. Like most farmers in the arid West, Nevada farmers rely heavily on irrigation for crop production.

In the western part of Nevada, seasonal irrigation is primarily based on water that comes from snow-melt in the Sierra Nevada. Alfalfa is the primary irrigated crop, given the market demand for feeding livestock. Alfalfa, a perennial, has been a staple of crop production in Nevada for many years because when irrigated, alfalfa can provide up to four crops a year. Nevertheless, long-standing drought conditions, where water delivery allocations provide only enough water to irrigate one crop has encouraged individuals to diversify to other crops. An article presented by the University of Nevada, Reno presents potential additional benefits such as conserving soil moisture and sustainable production Crop Diversification | Extension (unr.edu).

Becoming more familiar with your “paper” water rights, and the history of water delivery allocations under them, may allow a farmer to better evaluate the potential benefits of diversifying from alfalfa, that provides a four crop return, to other crops that may only allow a one or two crop return but be compatible with the water delivery scheme that limits irrigation deliveries during drought.

Pershing County Water Conservation District (PCWCD) is accepting applications for the position of Secretary/Manager.

A successful applicant will be responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of a 40,000-acre irrigation district located in Lovelock Nevada.  This irrigation district is a surface water district receiving water from the Humboldt River water system via its privately owned and operated reservoir.  This position is an at-will position to a 7 member Board. Salary commensurate with experience.

If interested, send a cover letter, resume, and three references to Peggy Holland at PCWCD by email to pholland@irrigation.lovelock.nv.us or contact 775-273-2293 for questions and a complete job description. 

What brought you to Schroeder Law Offices?

I came to Schroeder Law Offices right after graduating law school.  During my last year of school I was looking for a post-grad job related to natural resource law.  Having interned in jobs lobbying, in-house counsel for nonprofits, at an Attorney General’s Office, and at a large law firm, I knew I wanted to work in private practice, but in a boutique setting.

During my last semester of law school, I was working with The Freshwater Trust, a nonprofit in Portland, Oregon that does river restoration work. In that internship I had some exposure to water law and found it fascinating.  Schroeder was looking for an associate in Reno at the time. I was looking for a job in a location that would allow more of a rural lifestyle, so it was a perfect fit. I also loved that all the partners were women as this field is so often dominated by men.

What is your go-to productivity trick?

I am very to-do list oriented.  I tend to have one master list with all my projects and then one to two tiers of lists with more immediate tasks that need to be done in the next day or week.  A lot of my motivation comes from crossing something off a list.

What is something you find fascinating about water law?

Water law is one of the few niche practice areas that is incredibly diverse.  Unlike family or criminal law, where the issues, rules, and case law are often recycled, water law issues are always different.  In the last few years I have worked on property law, contract law, tort law, secured transaction law, tribal law, as well as federal issues like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and historic rights-of-way across federal land. I’ve never enjoyed monotony in a job. At Schroeder, I’m certainly never bored and almost always challenged in a new way!

What do you like to do for fun on the weekends?

Outside of work I like to cook, read, and work in my garden or on my farm. I also like to get outside for an adventure with my hodge-podge pack of dogs. On longer breaks, I like to backpack or kayak with my husband, travel internationally to see new places, learn about history, and try new foods.

What is your favorite book or movie?

I don’t have an all-time favorite book or movie that comes to mind.  Lately, I’ve really enjoyed anything written by Kate Quinn.  I love her portrayals of women’s forgotten roles in history, especially during WWII. 

What’s it like to work at Schroeder Law Offices?

Working at Schroeder is working with a close-knit team. We help each other out and really care about one another as people.  I’ve always felt supported and heard. The leadership has always been invested in my growth as a professional and outside of work. They also encourage me to build and maintain a life outside of the office.

Caitlin Skulan is an associate attorney at Schroeder Law Offices, PC.

Schroeder Law Offices not only advises on water issues, but we practice what we teach.  Schroeder Law Offices strives to connect with our clients on a personal level and to understand the practical implications and inconveniences client issues have on your lives.  We can do this, because we are people, too!

Schroeder Law Office Attorneys are ranchers, farmers, and rural homeowners.  Attorney Caitlin Skulan recently lived out some of these rural inconveniences when dealing with failed rural home water and sewer infrastructure. 

In her free time, Skulan spends time on a small 5-acre, in her words, “fixer upper” farm purchased with her husband in 2020.  Before and after work, Caitlin gardens, takes care of livestock, fixes fences, repairs and remodels outbuildings, and chases escapee chickens.  Being on a rural lot, Caitlin’s water is provided by a well.  The home is also equipped with a septic system for sewer. 

All was good as far as the water and sewer infrastructure for the first two years.  However, as any experienced rural homeowner knows, the lack of monthly sewer and water bills eventually comes with a price. 

I. Lessons in 1960s Septic Systems 

Imagine, your in-laws are visiting for a week from out of town, your spouse is away for work, you are working full time developing cases for trial, and you receive a call from your house guests that the showers aren’t draining!  You think nothing of it.  The drain is probably clogged with your sister-in-law’s hair.  You’ll take care of it when you get home.  Then the second call comes, the toilets aren’t flushing!  Now you start to worry.

Fast forward two days, three plumber visits, and a houseful of very disgruntled relatives, and you make a band aid fix, receive a quote for a complete septic line replacement, and are internally cursing the inventor of “Orangeburg” piping.

Orangeburg pipe is a bituminized fiber pipe made from layers of ground, compressed, wood pulp, bound by adhesive, and impregnated with coal tar pitch.  Effectively, it’s a cardboard pipe lined with tar. Also known as “no-corrode” pipe, Orangeburg pipe was commonly used for sewer pipes in homes built between 1945 and 1972.  The product owes its origins to World War II when iron and steel commonly used for sewer pipes were critical to the war effort and thus in short supply for building homes. The use of Orangeburg piping continued after the war ended because it was inexpensive.

Even when installed, the pipe was generally expected to last 50 years before deteriorating conditions would cause the systems to falter. As Orangeburg piping is essentially asphalt soaked paper that is in constant contact with water combined with the pressure of the soil above the pipe and subject to penetrating tree roots, it is not surprising pipes collapses and the system fails.  This is what Caitlin experiences in her 1960s home, requiring the pipe to be dug up, removed, and replaced with a new line. 

II. Sediment, Well Casing, and Calcium Deposits

A few weeks after the septic repairs, Caitlin noticed a reduction in water pressure and sediment in the water coming out of her faucets. Luckily, no house guests were present at the time. Initial research indicated this could be an issue with the well and a well company was called.

The well inspection indicated two things.  First, the water tank was flushed, and the well was in working order, but needed a sediment filter to filter tiny flakes of well casing out of the water. This is a cheap and minor fix as far as well repairs go.  Second, the water filtration system for the well needed to be replaced.  Caitlin, having completed the well inspection, sellers’ disclosures, and water quality test at the time she and her husband purchased their home, didn’t even know a water filtration system existed on the property and had, in fact, been advised not only to the contrary, but that given good water quality, one was not necessary. 

A new water sample was taken and a water quality test conducted to ensure the scope of filtration needed for the well.  While the water quality was within the limits of safe drinking water, the calcium levels were high enough to create concerns with the plumbing in the long term.  Calcium deposits in pipes are common in homes with “hard water” or high mineral contents.  Hard water can, and typically does, build up in drains and pipes. When left unresolved, this can cause corrosion or blockages.  While blockages in drainpipes can be easily and inexpensively resolved, the same is not the case for water supply pipes.  As such, the industry recommendation is to install a water softening system to prevent blockages from occurring or increasing.

III. Takeaways

At Schroeder Law Offices we emphasize due diligence before purchasing a property in an effort to “spend a dime to save a dollar.”  In the context of our practice, this usually means researching the validity, ownership, status, and adequacy of water rights that accompany rural properties.  However, completing due diligence research and inspections on rural water related infrastructure is important, too.

For water supply, a well inspection and water quality test by a reputable company is a must when considering purchasing a rural home.  However, lessons learned would recommend the well inspection and water quality test both be taken one step further.  Rather than rely on seller or realtor representation regarding water supply infrastructure, attend the well inspection yourself.  Ask the inspector to explain the system and its maintenance and upkeep. If necessary, schedule regular inspections to ensure everything is in working order. 

When water quality tests come back, even if safe for human consumption, ask the well inspector or a plumber if there are any concerns from an infrastructure perspective. If the water is hard, will it cause build up and is there any sign of mineral build up at the time of the inspection?  If a water filtration system must be installed, consider it in your purchase price or asking that one be installed by the seller prior to closing.

For septic systems, if the home was built between 1940 and 1990, strongly consider an inspection of the piping.  As Caitlin learned the hard way, having a septic inspection and service does not include an inspection of the pipeline from the home to the septic system.  Consider paying for a plumber knowledgeable in Orangeburg pipeline to camera and inspect the lines from the home to the septic system.  If the pipe is Orangeburg, factor replacing it into your purchase price or consider requesting the pipe be replaced by the seller as a latent defect in the property. 

In the first year back since COVID-19, the Nevada State Bar, Environmental & Natural Resources Section held its Annual Meet & Greet event on November 3, 2022.  A social, after work event, honorees included Adam Sullivan (Nevada State Engineer), Micheline Fairbank (Nevada Deputy Administrator for Nevada Division of Water Resources), David Bobzien (Nevada’s Office of Energy), Jim Lawrence (Acting Director, Nevada Department of Conservation & Natural Resources), and Chad Blanchard (Federal Water Master for the Truckee & Carson Rivers).

Section members attending networked with our Nevada agency leads on a more personal level without the stresses of adversarial positions. During the event, Section leaders asked our honorees fun “icebreaker” questions such as: 1) What is your idea of perfect happiness? 2) With which historical person do you most identify? 3) What is your greatest extravagance? and, 4) Which talent would you most like to have?  Of course, these questions sparked fun answers that provided a glimpse into our leaders as people.  Spending time with these Nevada agency leaders on a personal level ultimately allows us to know and appreciate the work we all pursue. 

The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) seeks public comments to its Draft Water Quality Integrated report. The public comment period for Nevada’s 2020-2022 Draft Water Quality Integrated Report closes on December 31, 2021. On November 22, 2021, NDEP published its Public Notice, inviting comment on the Draft Nevada 2020-2022 Water Quality Integrated Report. The report was prepared in accordance with the Clean Water Act, §§ 303(d), 305(b), and 314. The Clean Water Act requires NDEP to conduct a comprehensive analysis of water quality data associated with Nevada’s surface waters.

The report is a combination of the biennial reporting requirements under the Clean Water Act § 303 on impaired waters, and § 305 for an overall assessment of surface water quality within Nevada and a description of how current conditions provide for the protection of beneficial uses of the state’s waters.  The 2020 and 2022 assessment periods were combined into one report, as is the standard practice in Nevada. Thus, the report covers a data collection period of over seven-years. 

Data on Nevada’s rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs was collected from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2020 and was evaluated to determine if State water quality standards are being met and beneficial uses are supported. These periodic reports are used by the public, other entities, and NDEP for water quality management planning purposes.

Impaired Water Reporting Requirements

Under its Clean Water Act § 303 reporting requirements, NDEP has produced a list of waters where current pollution control technologies alone cannot meet the water quality standards set for that water body. The list also contains water bodies that may soon become impaired. Impaired waters are prioritized base on the severity of the pollution and the designated use of the water body (e.g. fish propagation or recreation).  NDEP will also develop total maximum daily loads or TMDLs of pollutants in the impaired water bodies. These TMDLs designate the maximum concentration of each pollutant allowed in the water body and will help guide NDEP water resource management decision in an attempt to improve impaired waters.

Public Comment

The Draft Nevada 2020-2021 Water Quality Integrated Report is available at:

https://ndep.nv.gov/water/rivers-streams-lakes/water-quality-standards/303d-305b-water-quality-integrated-report

Links to the 2016-2018 Water Quality Integrated Report and examples of its public comments can also be found at the link above.

The public comment period for the Draft Nevada 2020-2021 Water Quality Integrated Report closes on December 31, 2021 at 5:00 PM. Any comments should be submitted by mail or email to:

Dave Simpson
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Planning 
901 S. Stewart St.
Carson City, NV 89701
dsimpson@ndep.nv.gov

What’s Next?

Once the report is submitted, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must notify NDEP of its approval or disapproval of the § 303 impaired waters list within thirty (30) days. If the list and associated TMDLs are approved, NDEP will incorporate them into its plan.  If they are disapproved, the burden shifts to EPA to identify impaired waters and determine the TMDLs necessary to implement the water quality standards applicable to each water. This must be completed by EPA in thirty days.  After such identification, if necessary, NDEP will then incorporate EPA’s § 303 list into its water quality plan.

The next biennial report will be drafted in 2023 with an opportunity to submit public comment on the draft report prior to submission. Watch for our blog about it here.

(Photo Credit: https://www.visitlaughlin.com/listing/colorado-river/36922/)

Winter storage for use throughout the year may still be a viable option with surface water and hydrologically connected groundwater oftentimes unavailable for new permitting. It could be more important than ever during periods of prolonged drought!  

Laura Schroeder and Sarah Liljefelt will present a free, hour-long webinar on Tuesday, August 3rd, from noon to 1:00 PM, Pacific Time.

In this webinar you will learn about the roadblocks to developing surface water and hydraulically connected groundwater, and how to determine if water is available for winter storage. Then we will address the dual permitting process, how to optimize the storage location, and obtaining necessary flood easements. Finally, we will discuss what is involved in sharing storage by contractual arrangement.

There will be live Q&A. Questions will also be accepted in advance from registrants by email to Brittany Jesek b.jesek@water-law.com

Please register in advance for the new webinar at https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/2616261961273/WN_CNx3ZdMBRf62SXFmD80EMw

We will then send you a link to the actual webinar.

This new topic is the fourth of our “VACCINE” webinar series. It follows upon last spring’s popular “COVID” webinar series. You can view recordings of our prior webinars at   Water Right Video Handbook or Guide.  

Also, stay tuned for additional upcoming topics:

• Tuesday, September 14—Due Diligence for Canal, Pond, and Drainage Maintenance: Wetlands Delineation.
• Tuesday, October 19—How to Change or Remove an Easement (Ditch, Road, Well Share) from Real Estate.
• Tuesday, November 9—Should or Can You Take Stormwater Into Your Existing System?

We look forward to having you with us next Tuesday!

In the second installment of the VACCINE webinar series, Schroeder Law Office presents “What to Do When There is No Water: Drought Tools Explained.”  This webinar took place on Tuesday, June 22, 2021, from noon to 1:00 PM, Pacific time. A recording is now posted.

Laura Schroeder and Caitlin Skulan will discuss drought tools in Oregon, Nevada, and Idaho.  The discussion will include the requirements for a declaration of drought in each jurisdiction, tools available to water managers and users during drought, and priorities of use during water shortages.

Can’t make it on June 22^nd?  Afterwards, webinars are available here.  Schroeder Law Offices gives you free “on demand” access to educational content while maintaining social distance! Also check out our “Where is the Water?” articles in the WaterSPOT (Nevada) and the upcoming issues of the Water Gram (Idaho), and H2Oregon. 

Stay tuned to the Schroeder Law Offices blog for announcements about the upcoming webinars.  The third installment of the VACCINE series, “What Terms to Include in a Well Share Agreement” was presented Tuesday, July 13, 2021.  You can find a recording of that webinar here.

If you have any issues viewing, please contact Scott Borison at scott@water-law.com.    

(Image credit:  https://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/16/droughts-predictions-are-difficult-on-when-theyll-end.html; https://www.kunr.org/post/drought-fires-and-heat-look-nevadas-climate-earth-day-2021#stream/0)

On May 8, 2021, Schroeder Law Offices supported local youth by attending the Nevada Junior Livestock Show in Reno, Nevada.  Schroeder was invited by Carson City resident, Conner Simerson to bid on his broad breasted white turkey.  The three-day show took place at the Reno-Sparks Livestock Event Center. The purpose of the show is to provide an opportunity for the National FFA Organization, 4-H, youth Grange, and independent youth members to exhibit their livestock projects before the public and develop skills and practices related to livestock production.  These youth organizations are a popular part of Nevada’s agricultural community and often are an important family affair for our agricultural clients.

Animals at the show included turkeys, pigs, lambs, goats, and steers.  Livestock were judged for quality and breed standards. Youths also competed in showmanship events where their skills and knowledge in animal handling and rearing were judged.  The show ended with the annual market auction.  Youth are encouraged to contact local businesses and individuals to attend the auction and bid on their livestock.  Livestock are then processed by third parties and provided to bid winners to fill their freezers.

In addition to seeing a few familiar faces in the crowd and attending the Buyer’s dinner, we won the bid for Simerson’s turkey!  Schroeder Law Office staff were also able bid on other livestock and support additional local youth in their livestock rearing endeavors. 

Back by popular demand is Schroeder Law Office’s FREE live webinar series.  The 2021 VACCINE series follows the 2020 COVID-19 series. It will span across seven topics of water law. 

The first webinar of the series, Contracting Out-of-Boundary Water and Wastewater Services will take place on Tuesday, May 18, 2021 from noon to 1:00 PM, Pacific time.  Laura Schroeder and Caitlin Skulan will discuss contracting water and wastewater services outside a municipal or utility service boundary in Oregon, Nevada, and Idaho. The discussion will include when out of boundary contracting can occur, the duties owed to those inside and out of boundary, and other terms that should be included in these agreements. Participants will also learn about the pros and cons of out-of-boundary contracts. Attendees must pre-register for this webinar here!

Future VACCINE webinar topics will inlcude:

• Tuesday, June 22^nd—What to Do When There Is No Water: Drought Tools Explained;
• Tuesday, July 13th —What Terms to Include in a Well Share Agreement?
• Tuesday, August 3rd – How to Take Advantage of a Winter Appropriation Using Storage;
• Tuesday, September 14—Due Diligence for Canal, Pond, and Drainage Maintenance: Wetlands Delineation;
• Tuesday, October 19—How to Change or Remove an Easement (Ditch, Road, Well Share) from Real Estate; and
• Tuesday, November 9—Should or Can You Take Stormwater into Your Existing System?

Afterward, webinars are available here.  Schroeder Law Offices gives you “on demand” access to educational content while maintaining social distance!  Stay tuned to the Schroeder Law Offices blog for announcements about the upcoming webinars.  If you have any problems with registration or viewing, please contact Scott Borison at: scott@water-law.com. 

The Carson Water Subconservancy District has launched their second video in their, I am Carson River Watershed Campaign series, titled “Water Connects Us All” click the link below to watch:

http://iamcarsonriver.org/

For those of us in northern Nevada, the Carson River plays an important part in our communities by supporting our watershed’s environment, economy, and quality of life.  Regardless of where we live, we can all do our part in our daily lives to protect the watersheds around us. 

Here are some easy ways to help your community today:

• Recycle motor oil
• Using, storing, and disposing of chemical oils
• Inspecting and maintaining septic systems
• Cleaning up after pets
• Keep fertilizers, paint products, etc. out of the water supply

In the 2021 Nevada legislative session the Assembly considers nine water related bills and the State considers 15 water related bills total.  The 2021 legislative session began on February 1, 2021 and will conclude on June 1, 2021.  The Assembly bills are in various stages of consideration as the session approaches its conclusion. However, the clock has already run for certain bills.  Under Joint Standing Rule 14.3.1 the final standing committee to which a bill or joint resolution is referred in its house of origin may only take action on the bill or joint resolution on or before the 68^th calendar day of the legislative session. Under Joint Standing Rule 14.6, certain exemptions apply for re-referral of a bill to the Senate Committee on Finance or the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.  The 68^th day of the Session was April 9, 2021.

Other deadlines apply pursuant to Joint Standing Rule 14.3. These include:

1. Final action may only be taken by the House of origin on or before the 79^th calendar day of the legislative session (April 20, 2021);
2. Final standing committee to which a bill is referred in the second House may only take action until the 103^rd day of the legislative session (May 14, 2021) unless referred to the Senate Committee on Finance or the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means; and
3. Final action on the bill may only be taken by the second House on or before the 110^th day of the legislative session (May 21, 2021).

As a result, some of the bills are dead in the water and will progress no further.  Summaries of pre-filed Assembly Bills 5, 6, and 16 can be found in our earlier blog post.  The remaining water related Assembly bills are summarized below.

Assembly Bill 146

Assembly Bill 146 proposes various changes to Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”), chapter 445A regarding water pollution, including:

1. Requiring the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to establish a program regulating water pollution resulting from diffuse sources;
2. Establishing requirements for applicants for certain permits relating to water pollution to post a bond or other surety;
3. Revising the requirements for regulations adopted by the State Environmental Commission relating to water pollution, including the notice requirement relating to adoption of these regulations;
4. Revising provision related to the Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ control of water pollution, including control of diffuse sources of water pollution;
5. Revising requirements for permits to discharge pollutants or inject fluids through a well; and
6. Requiring consultation and notification to Indian tribes of certain actions related to water pollution.

Assembly Bill 146 has not passed the Assembly Committee of Natural Resources but is exempt from Standing Rule 14.3.1.

Assembly Bill 354

Assembly Bill 354 is the fruition of one of the bill drafts discussed in this earlier blog.  This bill authorizes the creation and sets forth the authority and duties of water banks.  It additionally requires the State Engineer to submit a biennial report to the legislature related to water banks and provides penalties for violations of its provisions.

Further action on Assembly Bill 354 is not allowed, pursuant to Joint Standing Rule 14.3.1.

Assembly Bill 356

Assembly Bill 356 is the fruition of the other bill draft discussed in this earlier blog.  This bill creates and sets forth the requirements for a voluntary water conservation program and creates an account for the Nevada Division of Water Resources to purchase and retire water rights in targeted basins.

Assembly Bill 356 passed the Assembly Committee of Natural Resources and is being considered by the Assembly Committee of Ways and Means.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 4

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 4 does not directly affect water resources or water quality.  However, it does direct the Legislative Commission to appoint a committee to conduct an interim study on general improvement districts (“GIDs”).  GID’s provide certain services and facilities to residents of the district, often times including water services.  Assembly Concurrent Resolution 4 will create a committee to study GIDs to: (1) improve accountability and effectiveness; (2) identify areas of continuing abuse and potential abuse in the creation, financing, operation, and oversight of GIDs; (3) consider modifying requirements related to GIDs; and (4) recommend possible legislative solutions to any continuing abuses.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 4 was referred to the Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections.

Assembly Joint Resolution 2

Assembly Joint Resolution 2 recognizes that that health of forests, rangelands, and soils are inextricably linked to the quantity and quality of water.  It further expresses and supports the Federal Government, state agencies, conservation districts, and local governments to work collaboratively with water purveyors, land managers, private land owners, land users, and other stakeholders to identify watersheds that can be improved by better forest, rangeland, and soil health measures and to identify or establish voluntary programs within the limits of the legislative appropriations, and other available money to address the health of forests, rangelands, and soil.

Assembly Joint Resolution 2 passed the Assembly and is currently being considered by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.

Assembly Joint Resolution 3

Assembly Joint Resolution 3 urgers various actions relating to the protection and conservation of land and water.  In the resolution, the Legislature expresses its support for the goal of protecting 30 percent of the lands and water in Nevada by 2030.  The resolution urges:

1. State and local agencies to honor tribal jurisdictions and the rights of indigenous tribes in efforts to protect land and water;
2. Fair treatments of all races in efforts to protect land and water;
3. Private landowners to participate in voluntary programs to protect wildlife habitat and increase carbon sequestration; and
4. Nevada Congressional Delegation to identify opportunities for federal legislation and regulatory action to expand protection and conservation measures on public land in Nevada.

Assembly Joint Resolution 3 passed the Assembly and is currently before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.

Interested in more legislative updates?  Keep an eye on our blog for a summary of the 2021 water related Senate bills.

(Image Credit: https://mynews4.com/news/local/explaining-the-mining-gaming-and-sales-tax-proposals-of-the-2021-nevada-legislature; https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/district-map-in-nevada-assembly-skews-blue-study-finds/)

The discussion of a specialized water judiciary is ramping up as Nevada considers creating water courts in both the legislative and judicial branches.

I. Proposed Legislation

On November 18, 2020, Senate Joint Resolution No. 1, commonly known as SJR1 was pre-filed for the 2021 legislative session. SJR1 was originally proposed by the Nevada Division of Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer (“Engineer”).  Then, the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau drafted the bill’s text for prefiling. SJR1 proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to provide that the Nevada Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction over certain cases relating to water.  These cases contemplated in the bill include civil cases arising from a final order or decision of the State Engineer.  Currently, the original jurisdiction of these cases falls with the district courts.

The actual amendments to sections 4 and 6 of the Nevada Constitution are brief. However, under them, the appeals of complex and technical State Engineer decisions would bypass the district courts and end up directly in front of the Court of Appeals. Water users and legal observers alike raised many concerns about SJR1 even before lawmakers arrived in Carson City on February 1, 2021 for the start of the legislative session.  For example, water users in Battle Mountain who dispute State Engineer rulings would be required to travel hundreds of miles to Las Vegas or Carson City to appeal their case before the Court of Appeals.  A common theme of concern was the limited access to justice that would result from this reorganization.

Acting State Engineer Adam Sullivan expressed agreements with these concerns.  The State Engineer’s office ultimately decided not to pursue SJR1 as written.

However, the State Engineer also expressed the importance of the premise originally contemplated in SJR1.  The idea behind the bill was to create a small group of judges that, over time, would hear many water cases and would develop a subject-area expertise in water law.  It is no secret that water law is a science heavy and technical area of law. Many attorneys who practice water law specialize in it for this reason.  Other states also recognize this type of specialization in the judiciary.  Colorado for example created its Water Courts in 1969, appointing a water judge for each of its seven water divisions.  These judges have specialized jurisdiction in the determination of water rights, use and administration of water, and all other water matters within their division.

II. Judicial Petition

As the State Engineer moves away from SJR1, Supreme Court Chief Justice Hardesty moves forward with a petition to empanel a commission that will examine the creation of specialty water courts in Nevada.  The goal of the petition is to bring more water law expertise to the judiciary.  The petition, identified as ADKT 576,would study improvement of education, training, specialization, timeliness, and efficiency of Nevada’s district courts in the judicial review of water cases.  It would further consider the authority of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to designate trained district judges to serve on water cases.  The petition suggests the inclusion of the follow representatives on the commission:

1. 1. 1. Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources/State Engineer;
      2. Water Rights Engineers/Hydrologists;
      3. Water Rights Attorneys;
      4. Urban Municipal Water Purveyors;
      5. Rural Water Interests;
      6. Agriculture;
      7. Irrigation Districts;
      8. Mining;
      9. Environmental Organizations;
      10. District Court Judges;
      11. Rural Nevada Communities; and
      12. Urban Nevada Communities.

III. Public Hearing

The Supreme Court held a public hearing on ADKT 576 on March 3, 2021. During the hearing, Justice Hardesty identified water as a “challenging, complexing, and consistently disagreed upon” area of the law.  The Court took comment on the petition during the hearing.  While the representation at the hearing was diverse, there was a common consensus:  general support for the creation of the commission and a new way to judicially review State Engineer decisions.

Deputy Administrator Micheline Fairbank and Acting State Engineer Adam Sullivan represented the State Engineer’s Office. “We believe an understanding of the law and precedent is not only required but important to the ability and desire to make sense of the technical scientific data,” Fairbank commented.  Sullivan echoed the sentinent and expanded, stating that the commission needs diverse and broad representation of all Nevadans, including Tribal Nations. The State Engineer also requested the Court expand the scope of the water court’s jurisdiction to adjudication proceedings.

Representatives for the Truckee Meadows Water Authority, water law attorneys, and environmental groups also generally supported the petition.

The Court took no action on the proposal during the March 3, 2021 hearing.  You cna track the status of the petition here.

Interested in more legislative water law updates?  Check out our blog on AB 5, AB 6, and AB 15 and keep an eye on blog postings for future updates.