By Dominic Corollo

The House Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing adressing concerns over the impacts of invasive quagga mussels on Tuesday, June 24, 2008.

The hearing, entitled “The Silent Invasion: Finding Solutions to Minimize the Impacts of Invasive Quagga Mussels on Water Rates, Water Infrastructure and the Environment,” particularly focused on the threat the quagga mussels pose to water and power systems in the west.

The quaaga mussel is related the better-known zebra mussel.  Both species are thought to have been introduced to North America around 1988 from ballast water in ships from Eastern Europe entering the Great Lakes.  Since their introduction, both mussels have proliferated in the northern regions of the Midwest and have been documented in several western states, including California and Nevada.  Most scientists believe that quaggas have spread to new water bodies from the hulls of recreational boats.  In the right humidity and temperature range, the mussels can live up to a month out of water.

The quagga is a both a prolific feeder and breeder.  They rapidly filter algae out of the water, thereby altering the food chain and severely impacting ecosystems.  In addition to thriving off the nutrients in the water, the mussels rapidly reproduce and attach to both soft and hard surfaces, causing significant economic impact by clogging water intake structures, interfering with flows, decreasing pumping capacities, and impairing water quality.  At the hearing, aquatic specialist Dr. Charles O’Neill of Cornell University reported to the Committee that the impact of the quagga mussel has been felt across 23 states to the magnitude of $1 billion and $1.5 billion.  Dr. O’Neill explained that roughly one-half of the financial burden has been borne by the electric power generation industry, while the drinking water industry has paid out nearly one-third of the total cost. 

Researchers are still trying to develop effective methods for controlling the quagga mussel where it has already been established.  Thus, many states have implemented programs designed to increase public awareness and slow the spread of the mussel into new bodies of water.  In 2002, Oregon established the Invasive Species Council to address issues relating invasive species and the Oregon State Marine Board has a Clean Marina Program that encourages boaters to thoroughly clean their boats to prevent the transfer of invasive species between water bodies.  Fortunately, Oregon has yet to document the quagga anywhere in the state, but the mussel has already found its way into certain waters in California and Nevada. 

The quagga was first documented in the west in January 2007 when it was discovered in Lake Mead.  Since that time, the mussel has been recorded throughout the Lower Colorado system, including into California.  The Statesman Journal reports that the Southern California Metropolitan Water Authority spent $6 million last spring cleaning freshwater aqueducts of quagga mussels.

While western states are beginning to ramp up efforts to slow the mussel’s proliferation, the Committee hearing highlights just how large of a problem the mussels are causing.  Many people realize the destructive environmental effects of invasive species, but the effects the mussels are having on water systems are bringing this issue to the national level.

For people interested in learning more about invasive species, visit Oregon Invasive Species Council’s website at:   http://www.oregon.gov/OISC/ .   The Oregon Invasive Species Summit is scheduled for July 22, 2008.  To see a short video feature about the quagga mussel see the Oregon Public Broadcasting website link at: http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/videos/view/11-Quagga-Mussles For a special report about the quagga mussel by the Statesman Journal see: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080210/INVASIVE06/802100309/1034 For information regarding Oregon’s Clean Marina Program, see: http://www.boatoregon.com/OSMB/Clean/ANS.shtml

The recent draining of Roslyn Lake could pose potential problems for nearby homeowners that have relied on leaks from the lake to augment their shallow wells.

The manmade lake was scheduled to be drained for some time as a necessary step in decommissioning Marmot Dam on the Sandy River. PGE warned 22 homeowners that their wells would likely be affected, but the Oregonian reports that as many as 60 could see their wells dry up. PGE denies responsibility for any costs associated with having to drill deeper wells; cost that could reach $20,000 to $30,000.

Many residents feel that they were underrepresented in the administrative process leading up to the decision to drain Roslyn Lake. Certainly, this issue appears to have received little attention.

Unfortunately, injured residents that failed to comment on the removal project could have difficulty litigating this matter. However, with the trend of decommissioning diversion dam systems similar to Marmot, the situation serves as a reminder to rural homeowners to familiarize themselves with their water rights and the vulnerabilities of their water systems.

For the Oregonian’s account, see: http://www.oregonlive.com/

     The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC), the Washington State Water Resources Association (WSWRA) , and the Idaho Water Users Association (IWUA) met in Spokane Washington on May 16, 2008 for the first of three Tri-State Meetings to be held this year.    

 OWRC, WSWRA, and IWUA are all organizations which promote the protection and use of water rights for its members though legislative action and policy development. The memberships of these organizations are primarily irrigation districts, canal companies and other special districts which supply or control water for agricultural use.    

The next Tri-State meeting will be held in Boise Idaho in August followed by a November meeting in Portland Oregon. To learn more about these organizations and their members go to:

OWRC: http://www.owrc.org/
WSWRA: http://www.wswra.org/
IWUA: http://iwua.org/

Storage capacity is obviously an important aspect of any municipal or domestic water supplier’s system. Increased storage capacity does any number of things for a water provider, including reducing the strain on equipment during summer peak demand times, increasing a water provider’s day-to-day flexibility, and providing for water during times of emergency.

We recently attended the ground breaking ceremony for South Fork Water Board’s new 2 million gallon reservoir. The excavation equipment was truly impressive, and the project should be fun to watch as it progresses over the summer. Present at the ceremony were South Fork Water Board Chair and West Linn Mayor Norm King, South Fork Water Board Vice-Chair and Oregon City Mayor Alice Norris, South Fork Water Board General Manager John Collins and staff, and the engineers, consultants and contractors overseeing and constructing the project.

Guest post by James Carver

I’ve worked for over thirty years in the field of water law in the office of the State Engineer and the Water Resources Department.  During those years I served as head of the Water Rights Division and later as Deputy State Engineer under Chris Wheeler.  I also presided over administrative hearings pertaining to water law for the State Engineer and his successor, the Director of the Water Resources Department.

Around the turn of the 19th century, Oregon saw a need for a system to document water use.  Recognizing that an orderly system for recording and prioritizing water rights would be necessary as water uses grew, the legislature, in 1909 adopted Oregon’s first comprehensive water code.  The code held priority and beneficial use as the standard for distributing water to growing agricultural and domestic needs.

Over the years, the Oregon legal system has fleshed out the scope of water rights and defined them as property rights akin to land.  The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a perfected water right is a property right and an appurtenance to the real property on which it is used.  The legislature has also recognized new practices that satisfy beneficial use.  These include leaving water instream to ensure minimum stream flows exist to support various fish species.

Unfortunately, there is now a growing movement to distribute water based on a public benefit analysis without regard to priority.  Believers in this new distribution system argue that water rights holders have been given access to public water without a requirement for payment in return.  Therefore, they should be subject to losing the water if it is needs for the public good.  Since users never “owned” the water, it can be taken from them without compensation.  However, there are major drawbacks to such as system.

A water distribution system constantly subject to alterations based on nebulous concepts, such as the public good, will likely result in a great devaluation of land with water rights attached.  For example, lending institutions will become more hesitant to finance projects involving water because the water on which the project is based may disappear without compensation if the state decides the public good is better served by taking it.

The doctrine of prior appropriation is well established in Oregon and any departure from the current system may carry with it economic consequences that far outweigh possible benefits gained from applying more water to uses in the public good.

While irrigation districts formed under ORS 545 have no specific authority to accept municipal storm water or to convey that water, many irrigation districts have allowed near by cities to use their irrigation ditches and agricultural drains for storm water runoff. As urbanization continues to increase, the demand on the districts’ canals has reached new heights. Increased demand coupled with more environmental concerns and regulatory oversight have caused many districts to re-evaluate allowing use of their irrigation canals or agricultural drains for accepting urban, suburban and municipal drainage. Recently, the Pioneer Irrigation District initiated a lawsuit against the City of Caldwell Idaho to prevent the City from dumping municipal storm water into its irrigation canals.

From a City’s perspective, utilizing the existing delivery and drainage infrastructure is an attractive prospect. From the district’s perspective, allowing a city to use its canals requires consideration of the legal, financial and political issues that may arise. First the district must consider whether it may even accept the storm water pursuant to its authorizing statute and pursuant to it’s organizational by-laws, rules and regulations. Second the district must consider the impact the storm water will have on its users and the quality and quantity of water in its canals. If the district determines it may accept the storm water, it is imperative the terms and conditions of the city’s use of its canals and drains be specifically detailed in a storm water contract or other intergovernmental agreement. Many times these agreements can be a benefit to the district by increasing the financial resources of the district. Schroeder Laws Offices, P.C. can help districts consider these factors and make these determinations and agreements that will protect the district’s interests.

The final topic of discussion on the OWRC conference call addressed changing start card fees for constructing wells.

Start card fees, fees paid along with the notification of new well construction, partially fund the OWRD staff payroll. The fee is currently $125.00. OWRD is concerned that the fee is no longer sufficient to sustain the well inspection program and would like to establish a schedule to raise the fees moderately and frequently (as opposed to large increases every 5 or more years).

Once again, this topic generated a number of comments. The WaterWatch representative suggested that OWRD’s current cost recovery of roughly 30% through fees was not high enough and that a goal of nearly 100% recovery would be preferable. She called attention to increasing fees for issuing limited licenses and adding an additional fee for water right permit applicants who protest an OWRD order.

The Committee members expressed some agreement with the idea that OWRD should move towards a more comprehensive fee based structure with a goal of 50% cost recovery. Other attendees believed that water users would support increased fees because added revenue could allow OWRD to augment staff and work through application backlogs.

The next topic in the OWRD legislative concepts discussion is the creation of a water development fund.

OWRD discussed updating statutory language found in ORS 541.700-541.855 addressing financial aid to communities constructing water supply projects. OWRC members expressed some concern with this item because it involved project funding. Director Ward suggested that discussion of monitory issues could be postponed until the OWRC meeting taking place in Burns, OR on May 29 and 30 because there will be a more defined draft budget in place at that time.

There should be more lengthy discussions on this topic in the near future.

Good morning! The third part in my series of posts addresses some proposed changes to irrigation district transfer rules.

Currently, when an individual transfers the place of use of a water right any supplemental rights must be transferred with it or canceled. However, the statutes controlling irrigation districts do not explicitly allow for transfer of supplemental rights when primary rights are transferred. OWRD would like to update the irrigation district statutes, specifically ORS 540.570 and 540.580 to bring them in line with other transfer statutes.

The attendees had few substantive comments and generally agreed that a change in statutory language would be appropriate.

The second topic addressed during the OWRC teleconference was modifying language pertaining to statewide mitigation banks.

OWRD wants to modify statutory language to give itself explicit authority to create statewide mitigation banks. These mitigation banks can be used to offset effects of new water supply projects.

This proposed statutory change drew a few comments from attendees. A representative from WaterWatch expressed her organization’s concern that new statutory language must be precise so as to avoid creating loopholes that allow users to access water without adhering to the monthly rate limitations placed on the source permits. However, a representative from Special Districts Association of Oregon expressed a need for greater flexibility across regions so as to allow different water needs to come together.

The Oregon Water Resources Commission (“OWRC”) had its monthly conference call on Monday. In attendance were a majority of the OWRC members including: Ray Williams, Jay Rasmussen, Susie L. Smith, Dan Thorndike and Charles Barlow. Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) Director, Phil Ward, and a handful of his staff members were in attendance. Those attending the call at the OWRD offices in Salem included Kimberley Priestley (WaterWatch), Anita Winkler (Oregon Water Resources Congress), Katie Fast (Oregon Farm Bureau Federation) and Amanda Rich (Special Districts Association of Oregon).

The agenda covered legislative concepts that OWRD will be developing during the 2009 and 2011 sessions. I will post short summaries on each concept over the course of the next week. Today I’m going to talk about the first topic that OWRC addressed: instream leasing.

Currently instream leasing is not an option for a holder of a water right claim involved in an adjudication. A final decree must be issued before instream leases can occur. OWRD would like to open instream leasing to claims in an adjudication as soon as a final order is issued so water right holders can lease water and show beneficial use during seasons when the user does not need the water.

There wasn’t significant discussion on this topic. Tomorrow I’ll be talking about statewide mitigation banks.

Our work in Armenia involves reviewing contracts between the State and a couple of the largest water purveying companies in the world, Veolia and Suez, which are headquartered in France.

Interestingly, we have found that these French companies, through their subsidiaries Veolia Water North America and United Water, also have contracts in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Examples include Operation and Maintenance contracts between Veolia and the cities of Wilsonville, OR and Vancouver, WA, and contracts between United Water and Boise, ID.

Links to these companies can be found at www.veoliawaterna.com and www.unitedwater.com.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of teaching a Water Law Bootcamp for Water for Life. Over forty people attended at the Baker County Fairgrounds in Baker City Oregon. Unlike previous presentations, attendees focused their questions primarily on due diligence water rights review in real estate transactions and valuations of water rights when lending on water righted properties. Apparently in these economic times, realtors and lenders are giving much more scrutiny to what water rights exist on the property subject to a transaction.

The Oregon Supreme Court will hear oral arguments and review the Oregon Court of Appeals decision in the case Fort Vannoy Irrigation District v. Water Resources Commission. The review arises from a 2002 dispute between the irrigation district and a district landowner. The landowner submitted an application to the Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) seeking to transfer the points of diversion of five water rights certificates to two new consolidated points of diversion. The proposed new points of diversion would be located out of the district facilities and would be beyond the control of the irrigation district. Two of the water right certificates made part of the transfer were issued in the name of the irrigation district.

The irrigation district protested transfer applications and initiated a contested case hearing in which it argued that the landowner could not request a transfer on the water rights issued in the name of the irrigation district without the district’s permission. The irrigation district argued it was a co-owner of the water rights and thus any transfer would require its involvement. OWRD participated in the contested case and argued against the irrigation district’s co-ownership position. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a final order rejecting the irrigation district’s position. The Water Resources Commission agreed with the ALJ decision and issued a final order dismissing the irrigation district’s protest and approving the land owners transfer application. In it’s final order, the Commission acknowledged that “the ownership of a water right certificate within an irrigation district is a recurring question” but ultimately determined it did not need to resolve the question of ownership because under the transfer rules (ORS 540.505 et. seq.) “the only permission that is required is that of the owner of the land to which the water right is appurtenant.”

The irrigation district filed a petition for judicial review of the Commission’s decision. Last summer, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the Commission’s order. The Court of Appeals held that an irrigation district holding a water rights certificate is the “holder of a water use subject to transfer” under ORS 540.510 and thus is the entity authorized to seek the change requested. A copy of the Court of Appeals decision can be found here: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A130508.htm.

The Supreme Court’s review of the case will be narrow. The issue on review before the Supreme Court is whether the property owner to whose land a water right certificate is appurtenant is a “holder of any water use subject to transfer” under ORS 540.510, such that the owner may apply to change the point at which the water is diverted from its source. The case will be heard on May 13, 2008 at 10:30 am, at the Enterprise High School in Enterprise Oregon.