The State of the Water Industry Survey

In the June 2020 issue of Opflow, the American Water Works Association published a survey of 3,351 water industry professionals. The State of the Water Industry (SOTWI) survey identifies challenges to the water industry and seeks to understand their causes.

Several issues regarding water resource management made the top ten concerns of the industry professionals surveyed. “Long-term water supply availability” was the third-highest ranked issue on the list at #3, followed closely by “watershed/source water protection” (#5) and “groundwater management and over-use’ (#10).

Water Demand

Specifically, 57 percent of surveyed respondents indicated that their utilities could meet anticipated long-term water demand. However, about 12 percent of respondents claim that it will be challenging to meet future supply needs. This uncertainty creates reverberating effects throughout the industry. Uncertainty affects many other aspects of water resource management and quality, including the other issues mentioned in the survey. Future supply shortfalls will lead to increased price and competition as well as the potential for more frequent litigation over water rights.

Source Water Protection

In addition, source water protection was another critical issue for water resource managers. 76 percent of utility respondents to the survey said that they had implemented or were implementing a source water protection program. When considering only large utility respondents, that share increased to 89 percent. Clearly, utilities focus on strong source water protection programs. These programs are often cost-effective ways to protect and improve both water quality and quantity. Further, states are generally responsible for implementing water quality standards under the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts for drinking water. Recently, the AWIA, America’s Water Infrastructure Act amended the Safe Drinking Water Act, signed into law in 2018.

Groundwater

Finally, this was the second consecutive year that groundwater issues were front and center in the survey. 2019 California drought and wildfire conditions stressed groundwater resources, bringing those issues to the front of many survey respondents’ minds. Those issues show no signs of abating, as drought and wildfires continue to ravage the West.

In conclusion, many of the challenges highlighted by survey respondents are similar to those faced by water resource managers throughout the years. While there may be some cause for concern in certain areas, overall the survey shows a positive outlook for the future. Utilities are using existing water resources more efficiently as they comply with the AWIA, protect their water sources, and engage in asset management planning. The water industry has poised itself to meet its challenges with resilience.

This blog was drafted with the assistance of Drew Hancherick, a current law student attending Lewis and Clark Law School.

In a previous blog, we looked into who owns an aquifer: does it belong to private individuals or the public? Under the ad coelum doctrine, the surface owner holds the ground itself – rocks, dirt, and the like – as private property, owned all the way down to the Earth’s core. On the other hand, the public collectively owns water, taken for private use through the rule of capture, or the ferae naturae doctrine.^[1] Because an aquifer is a “body of permeable rock which can contain or transmit groundwater,”^[2] the rules related to aquifers are a complex combination of the two competing doctrines. In our previous update, we highlighted a California district court case, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Desert Water Agency, et al, that seeks an answer to the question of aquifer pore space ownership.^[3]

Background

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”) sued the Coachella Valley Water District and Desert Water Authority (“Defendants”) to protect the aquifer under its reservation from groundwater depletion and water quality degradation. The Tribe argued that the pore spaces within the aquifer are its property under the ad coelum doctrine. The Defendants believe that the public owns pore spaces. The court has not yet addressed the question of whether the pore spaces are public or private property. However, the case has progressed since our last post and we are due for an update.

The Tribe and Defendants agreed to split the litigation into three phases when the Tribe first filed the case in 2013. Phase 1 was to decide whether the Tribe had a reserved right to groundwater in principle. Thereafter, Phase 2 would resolve if this reserved right contained a water quality component, the method of quantification of a reserved groundwater right, and if the Tribe owned pore spaces within the aquifer. Phase 3, if necessary, would quantify the Tribe’s reserved groundwater right and ownership of pore space.

In Phase 1, the court granted summary judgment to the Tribe on its groundwater right claim. The decision essentially declared without a trial that the Tribe did in fact have a reserved right to groundwater. Phase 2 was delayed while the Defendants unsuccessfully appealed to the 9th Circuit and then unsuccessfully sought Supreme Court review.

Update

Like Phase 1, Phase 2 proceeded to summary judgment. The court ruled that the Tribe can seek a declaration that it has an ownership interest in sufficient pore space to store its groundwater. However, the Tribe did not argue that it owns the pore space as a “constituent element” of its land ownership in its initial complaint, and the court could not consider it. Recently, the Tribe submitted an amended complaint including its pore space as “constituent element” of land ownership argument, which is now before the court.

The question of whether the Tribe has ownership of the pore space beneath its reservation is the only item left for the court to decide in this phase; the answer could have a real impact on groundwater issues, as it may be one of the first cases to directly address the pore space question. Another controversy is bubbling over pore spaces in North Dakota, starting with the case Mosser v. Denbury Res., Inc., 2017 ND 169 (2017), passage of H.B. 2344, and legal challenges to the bill by the NW Landowners. Keep an eye on the blog for our next update on this case that could affect you!

This blog was drafted with the assistance of Drew Hancherick, a current law student attending Lewis and Clark Law School.

^[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos

^[2] Oxford Online Dictionary, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/aquifer

^[3] The case is presently before the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Docket No. ED CV 13-00883-JGB-SPX. Plaintiffs filed the complaint on May 14, 2013.

In the eighth COVID-19 webinar, Laura Schroeder, Michelle Owen, and Scott Revell discussed various types of water organizations. The webinar aired originally on June 3, 2020 from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM. You can view the webinar here!

Above all, learn the differences between public and private water organizations. For instance, the panelists will provide examples of the different types of public and private water management organizations. Further, the presentation reviews the generally applicable rules pertaining to public water agencies and regulatory oversight of private water utilities. Generally, topics will include:

• Types of Water Management Organizations
  • Residential and domestic
  • Irrigation
  • Flood control and drainage
• Comparing Public and Private Water Management
  • Formation, organization, and dissolution
• Public Water Organizations
  • Municipal, irrigation, domestic, and flood control agencies in Oregon, Nevada, and Washington
  • Applicable laws, rules, and requirements for public agencies
• Private Water Organizations
  • Corporations, ditch companies, and community water systems
  • Different agencies providing oversight of private water management organizations

Afterwards, we posted our webinars in the COVID-19 Series here, giving you “on demand” access to Schroeder Law Office’s educational events under the “social distancing” orders! Additionally, the COVID-19 Webinar series continued over several weeks covering topics, including livestock water rights on public lands. If you can’t make it, stay tuned to our blog for announcements for information about the next webinars or watch the webinars later on our website. If you have any issues with registration or viewing the webinars, please contact Scott Borison at: scott@water-law.com.

In the fourth COVID-19 webinar, Laura Schroeder and Wyatt Rolfe discussed how to conduct due diligence on water use rights. The webinar originally aired on May 6, 2020 from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM. You can view the webinar here! Stay tuned to our blog for announcements for information about the next webinars. You can watch previous webinars in the series here.

Learn the basics about water use rights in property transactions and determining if any issues are present. Receive practical information to locate any “red flags,” the most common issues encountered in water use right due diligence, including those related to small utilities. Topics will include:

• Why conduct a water use right due diligence review?
  • What gets missed in the typical process.
• What water use rights do I have?
  • General overview of water right types.
• What are the major issues encountered with water use right due diligence?
  • Discussion of forfeiture, abandonment, deviations from allowed uses, compliance, and conditions of use.
• What red flags are associated with water use right due diligence?
  • Learn the most commonly encountered issues and special considerations for cannabis producers.
• What special considerations pertain to water utilities and water providers?
  • Consider the issues of purpose, water management and conservation planning, and service boundaries for public water providers.

The COVID-19 Webinar series continued over several weeks, including topics related to using the OWRD website to locate information and real property issues associated with water use rights. All webinars are available on our website, giving you access to Schroeder Law Office’s educational events under the “social distancing” orders! Follow Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog for the most up to date information and announcements!

The city of Anacortes, WA, is making news by running part of its new fiber optic cable network through its water system.

Brown and Caldwell’s Water News for September 25, 2019, links to a report by KUOW News: “Wifi wires will run through water pipes in northern Washington town.” This “first in North America” system, according to Fred Buckenmeyer, Director of Public Works for Anacortes, has already connected Anacortes with neighboring city, Mt. Vernon.

Richard Walker, of goanacortes.com, writes: “installation of the first fiber optic cable began April 8, using a method commonly used in Europe … using conduit installed in active water lines.” According to KUOW’s report, the internet tube is encased in the same plastic as the water pipe.

Buckenmeyer continues, “Like having a water pipe inside a water pipe. No chance of contamination or anything like that.”

It is also being touted as a way to reduce costs such as eliminating the need to dig under Washington State’s Skagit River, the Swinomish Slough and “15 miles of farms, wetlands, streets and sidewalks along the way.”

Jacqueline Allison, also of goanacortes.com, writes that this is intended to provide a fiber optic telemetry enabling communication between fire stations, water stations and other city facilities.

The city will sell the unused broadband capacity to consumers as part of a municipal wifi network. Interest in connecting to this growing network has already been expressed by Island Hospital in Anacortes, and Western Washington University in Bellingham, among others. The city is hoping to entice customers from commercial internet providers. According to project manager Jim Lemberg, if they can capture a third of the commercial market, the project will “pay for itself in 15 years.”

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Office blog for water law and water updates all year long.

For the past decade, Schroeder Law Offices has provided opportunities to law students interested in learning water and natural resource law. Former SLO law clerks have established successful legal practices across the Pacific Northwest and beyond.

Schroeder Law Offices is pleased to introduce our 2019 summer law clerk, Katie Jourdan. Katie is returning to work with the attorneys and staff after having clerked previously with SLO during the fall of 2018.

Katie is entering her last year of law school at Lewis and Clark Law School, where she will complete her Juris Doctorate in May of 2020. With an emphasis on Natural Resource and Land Use Law, Ms. Jourdan has experience researching and analyzing water rights issues. Previously, Katie worked with the Western Resource Legal Center on land use and agriculture issues. She also interned with the Washington Cattlemen’s Association where she conducted research on recent land use legislation. 

Katie holds a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Studies and Journalism from Gonzaga University, where her enthusiasm for natural resources has paved her way to law school. Her background in agriculture and small farm life further nurtures an empathy for water users and the issues that rural America faces.

This summer, Katie is putting to good use her time spent in the classroom and exercising her proficiency in legal research. She is working with the attorneys and staff at Schroeder on client cases, educational presentations, and litigation preparation. In the fall, Katie will begin her final year at Lewis and Clark.

The ongoing efforts to protect a central Washington aquifer and the economic interests jeopardized by its steady decline were the focus of the Columbia Basin Development League’s Conference and 54^th Annual Meeting, which was held November 1 at Moses Lake.

The CBDL, which identifies itself as a non-profit organization representing the interests of stakeholders of the Columbia Basin Project, the largest Bureau of Reclamation project in the United States, has staunchly advocated for full development of the Project. Initially authorized to provide irrigation for 1.1 million acres – water, diverted from the Columbia River at Grand Coulee Dam, was first delivered in 1948 – the Project currently serves approximately 700,000 acres. Irrigators on the eastern side of the Project area not served by the Project’s vast conveyance network – plans for full buildout were scuttled in the 1960s due to escalating costs – became reliant on groundwater sourced from the Odessa Aquifer.

To address the aquifer’s continual decline, which has caused numerous wells in the region – owned by municipalities as well as farmers – to fail, the state of Washington launched the Columbia River Initiative, which revived plans for expansion of the Project. In 2013, those plans took shape as the Odessa Ground Water Replacement Program.

OGWRP, intended to ease irrigation reliance on groundwater within the Odessa Subarea by switching eligible landowners over to Project surface water, is a two-step construction undertaking. The first phase, a $50 million expansion of OGWRP’s primary artery, the East Low Canal, and associated infrastructure to accommodate added capacity, is well under way. The second phase, building pumphouses and laterals to deliver water to eligible irrigators, is in the formative stages and expected to cost approximately $175 million.

After a panel discussion on OGWRP featuring a farmer/landowner, an Adams County administrator and two representatives from the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District, U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse added his perspective in the conference’s keynote address. Newhouse lauded the progress made through the collaborative efforts of federal, state and local entities, then turned to the issue of financial support. “The state of Washington has done great job, but it’s time for the federal government to step up,” he said. “We need to make (the Columbia Basin Project) bear all the fruit it was designed to.”

Newhouse indicated the key to obtaining federal funding would be getting the Project included as a line item on the president’s budget rather than relying on receipt of an earmark through the appropriations process. With continued efforts to bring attention to OGWRP – and the potentially devastating economic and environmental consequences if it is not fully implemented – Newhouse believed that the need would be recognized.

“There’s a tremendous opportunity in the Columbia Basin for (President Trump) to put his stamp,” Newhouse said. “We’ve got a builder in the White House.”

For more information on OGWRP and the Columbia Basin Project go to https://www.cbdl.org/.

Authored by: Valley Urricelqui

Did you know that an animal’s performance is based, in part, on their water intake?

Water is the most essential component for livestock’s proper growth, development and performance.

How much water do you think cattle drink each day? Well there are a lot of different factors that lead up to that. It all depends on what type of cattle we are talking about, the weather (What is the temperature outside? Is it summertime or wintertime?) as well as the stage in life the animal is currently in. But it is always important to  remember that, generally speaking, when it comes to watering cattle, the heavier the cattle, the higher the water intake.

Cattle should consume 1-2 gallons of water per 100 pounds of body weight. So if you have a 1500 pound cow, she should be drinking about 15-30 gallons of water on an average day.

Below is a list of the amount of water cattle drink each day:

For more detailed information visit: https://www.grass-fed-solutions.com/cattle-water.html

*Fun Fact: Did you know that cattle have 4 stomachs? The Rumen is the largest and can hold up to 50 gallons of feed!

*Fun Fact: The average cow can drink as much as 30-50 gallons of water on a hot summer day! For pairs to get through the summer time heat, they may need to drink 2x the amount of water.

*Fun Fact: Did you know what I mean by “a pair”? A pair is defined as a momma cow and her baby calf.

As the temperatures begin to increases over 40 degrees – cattle generally require an additional gallon of water for every 10 degree increase in temperature.

Water is crucial for the life of livestock, just as all mammals. In order for livestock owners to maintain healthy and happy livestock they must assure that the animals are properly taken care of. A large part of that starts with maintaining our livestock’s water supply.

On March 13, 2018, Oregon Governor Kate Brown declared a drought in Klamath County under Oregon Executive Order No. 18-02, with an expiration date of 12/31/2018. The drought was declared largely due to the low snow pack in the region. According to the Capital Press, Klamath County was, at that time, experiencing 45 percent of its usual snowpack for the year. Since March 13, the Governor has made drought declarations in five additional counties: Grant, Harney, Lake, Douglas, and Baker. To check for current drought declarations, click here.

The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) is currently issuing emergency drought permits for the Klamath Basin.  According to OWRD, temporary emergency use groundwater permits may be issued in designated drought areas. These permits allow surface water users under drought declaration access to temporarily use groundwater wells to gain access to water. In addition, approved drought permits will require metering, record keeping, and reporting of groundwater use over the season to the Department. To access the emergency drought application’s, click here.

Due to the low snow pack in the 2017-18 winter, and the limited rain fall Oregon has experienced, much of the west is expected to experience higher than usual fire danger. From October 2017 through April 2018 rainfall was approximately 70 percent of what is typical in southwest Idaho, and approximately 50 to 70 percent of what is typical in southeast Oregon. The Capital Press reported that The National Interagency Fire Center’s Predictive Services Unit (NIFC) reported on May 1 that it expects warmer and drier than average conditions across the west. According to the Capital Press the NIFC report also went on to say that southeastern Oregon’s warm, dry April stood out in contrast to cooler, wetter conditions in much of the northwest. The NIFC reported on June 1 that April’s cooler than average conditions across the northwestern states were replaced by above average temperatures in May. The June report went on to say that the above average temperatures are likely caused by the El Niño weather pattern that is expected to hit by mid-fall. The National Ocean Service classifies an El Niño by an unusually warm waters in the Pacific Ocean. Typically, it will occur during winter months like December. According to the National Ocean Service, it typically brings wetter than average conditions off the US Gulf Coast.

US News reported that as of April, all basins in Oregon were well behind on snow pack, most measuring 40 – 70 percent of normal levels. The US Drought Monitor map shows (click here to see the map) abnormally dry to moderate drought conditions, extending through the month of August.

Oregon has already had 259 fires across the state in 2018, which have burned 2400 acres, as of June 28 according to the Oregon Dept. of Forestry (ODF), Fire Blog. According to the NIFC, there are 55 fires currently burning throughout 10 states, and as of June 28, seven of those are new, with 29 of the fires currently burning, in Alaska alone. Of those 55 fires, nearly 500,000 acres have already burned and only three of them are considered contained.

As a result of the unusually low snow pack, unseasonably dry heat, and over all conditions, the 2018 summer is expected to continue to be busy for wildland fire fighters and irrigators alike. Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Blog for more news.

While the negotiation of U.S. international treaties has been in the news lately, the renegotiation of an international treaty of particular importance to the Pacific Northwest has not received much coverage. However, May 29-30, 2018 marked the first round of negotiations between the U.S. and Canada in the effort to renegotiate the Columbia River Treaty.

Notably, May 30, 2018 also marked the 70th anniversary of the historic Vanport flood that wiped out a town of approximately 18,000 residents situated between Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington.[1] On that day in 1948, the Columbia River crested at Portland to fifteen feet above its flood plain and breached the embankment protecting Vanport, which just years earlier was Oregon’s second largest town.[2] While the town of Vanport no longer exists, one of the many legacies of the devastating flood is the Columbia River Treaty and its flood control provisions.

 A Columbia River Treaty between the U.S. and Canada was seriously considered beginning in 1944, but it was not until 1960 that the U.S. and Canada began negotiating the Treaty, which was signed in 1961 and took effect in 1964. The Treaty has no specific end date, but 2024 is the earliest either party may terminate the Treaty and to do so, the party must provide a minimum of 10 years written notice of termination.

The impetus for renegotiating now is that the assured annual flood control procedures in the Treaty will end after 2024 whether or not the Treaty is terminated.[3] After 2024, on-call flood control measures will apply requiring the U.S. to ask Canada to store water after the U.S. has used all available flood control space in U.S. reservoirs.[4] These on-call procedures have been referred to by Oregon and Washington’s Congressional Representatives Peter DeFazio and Cathy McMorris Rodgers as “ad hoc, unplanned” and with the likely potential to cause uncertainty and international disputes.[5]

The Canadian storage created by the Columbia River Treaty includes 15.5 million acre-feet of water in the upper reaches of the Columbia, including the storage behind Libby Dam, which sits near the U.S. and Canada border in Montana and created Lake Koocanusa, a reservoir that backs up 42 miles into British Columbia. While the U.S. benefits from the flood control measures, both countries realize a benefit from the power generated. However, the Treaty was not written specifically to provide water for irrigation or fish subsistence.[6]

Both Canada and the U.S. have spent recent years studying the effects of the Treaty and the various issues that will serve as levers in the negotiation to balance the current and future needs of both countries. These studies ultimately led both countries to consult with stakeholders in their regions and to issue regional recommendations that will serve as the basis for renegotiating the Treaty.[7]

While neither county has given notice of termination, the entities began renegotiating the Treaty on May 29-30, 2018. The next scheduled negotiation is August 15-16, 2018. [8] The renegotiation of the Columbia River Treaty will be important for Pacific Northwest irrigators and water users as the eventual revisions to the Treaty will likely: impact future reservoir storage, alter the timing of reservoir releases, take into account ecological and fish impacts of the Columbia River Power System, and effect utility rates for all electricity customers.

[1] Michael N. McGregor, The Vanport Flood, The Oregon History Project: Oregon Historical Society (Mar. 17, 2018) available at https://oregonhistoryproject.org/articles/essays/the-vanport-flood/#.WxhNxkgvyUm.

[2] Carl Abbott, Vanport, The Oregon Encyclopedia: Oregon Historical Society (Mar. 17, 2018) available at https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/vanport/#.WxhNwUgvyUn.

[3] Northwest Power & Conservation Council, Columbia River Treaty, available at https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/columbia-river-history/columbiarivertreaty.

[4] Id.

[5] Cathy McMorris Rodgers & Peter DeFazio, Modernizing our Columbia River Treaty, OregonLive (Mar. 14, 2018) available at http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/03/peter_defazio_modernizing_our.html#article.

[6] Columbia River Treaty.

[7] Id.

[8] U.S. Dept. of State, Press Release: On the Opening of Negotiations to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty Regime (May 30, 2018) available at https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/05/282867.htm.

On January 18, 2018, just eight days into the Washington State 2018 legislative session, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 6091, dubbed the “Hirst fix.” Hirst, refers to a 2016 Washington State Supreme Court decision in Whatcom County vs. Hirst, Futurewise, et al.

Washington State Counties can only issue building permits or approve subdivision development if the County can make a finding that an adequate water supply exists for the development. The Hirst Decision found that Whatcom County was incorrectly relying on Department of Ecology determinations to find evidence of an adequate water supply. This Decision caused many Counties to stop issuing building permits or place the burden for proving water was available fully on the applicant. This stalled development in Washington.

The Senate Bill 6091 amended, RCW 19.27.097, RCW 58.17.110, RCW 90.03.247, and RCW 90.03.290, added a new section to chapter 36.70A RCW and chapter 36.70 RCW, and added a new chapter to Title 90 RCW. These changes and additions provide a framework for Counties to issue building permits and approve development for projects that rely on water supplied by permit exempt groundwater uses without completion of a well by well analysis. However, depending on the watershed at issue, use of a permit-exempt groundwater well comes with limitations.

For Schroeder Law’s complete explanation of the Bill, check out the article on our webpage, here.

As always, stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ blog for more updates on water related legislation!

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!

Today is World Food Day and we see many promoting their initiatives to fight hunger as they celebrate October 16, 1945 – founding day of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

One of Schroeder Law Offices’ missions is to support people feeding the world. We do this by offering legal services for those farmers and ranchers out there who are growing crops to feed the world, or otherwise contributing to the food and fiber industries in this and other countries.

Just this summer, we toured our clients’ properties learning how they are using technology and advancements to increase their crop yields on the same acreage with the same water use. We also learned how our clients are working with nutritionists to feed cattle in the optimal fashion to raise beef and other meat sources. We are proud that we can support our clients’ water needs in their pursuit to sustainably feed the world!

What are you doing for World Food Day?

Partner Sarah Liljefelt and Assistant Administrator Kelley Wesson are heading to Olympia, Washington this weekend to race dragon boats with the Oregon Women Lawyers team, the Dragonflies, at the Port of Olympia. The Oregon Women Lawyers Dragonflies is an all-women, competitive dragon boat team made up of attorneys, paralegals, and other legal professionals. The team took bronze at last year’s race, and they are hoping to medal again this year! For more information about the team, visit their website. Come on down to the race if you are in the area. Sarah and Kelley would love to visit with you between race heats.

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.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration, and the Bureau of Reclamation (“federal agencies”) are engaged in a five year process to analyze the effects of the Federal Columbia River Power System on salmonid species. In May 2016, District Court Judge Michael Simon found the federal agencies had violated the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.[1] Specifically, Judge Simon said the federal agencies erred in failing to manage the Federal Columbia River Power System with strategies beyond the hydro-mitigation efforts that failed in the past.

Therefore, the Judge ordered the federal agencies to develop a new biological opinion to address: 1) mitigation measures to avoid jeopardy to salmonid species; 2) development of a Biological Opinion that complies with the Endangered Species Act; and 3) development of an Environmental Impact Statement that complies with the National Environmental Policy Act and addresses the impact of the Snake River dams on salmonid species. In his opinion, Judge Simon suggested a proper analysis should include considering breaching, bypassing, or removing the Lower Snake River dams.

The federal agencies will hold public scoping meetings around Washington, Idaho, and Oregon in the next weeks, in addition to two webinars.[2] Written comments will also be accepted until January 17, 2017. The meetings will be held from 4-7 PM as follows:

• November 29th, Boise, Idaho
• December 1st, Seattle, Washington
• December 6th, The Dalles, Oregon
• December 7th, Portland, Oregon
• December 8th, Astoria, Oregon

The scoping meetings are an important way for stakeholders to help the federal agencies narrow the issues and focus on key concerns. After the time period for the scoping meetings, the federal agencies will prepare a draft environmental impact statement that will be available for public comment.[3] The federal agencies must respond to all substantive comments on the draft environmental impact statement.

It is recommended that parties interested in the outcome of the federal agencies’ decision attend a scoping meeting and make comments. If an interested party later wants to challenge the federal agencies’ decision that a certain alternative should have been analyzed in the NEPA document, the court may not hear the concern.

Written comments may be made in person at one of the scoping meetings, submitted via mail, via email, or through the federal agencies’ online portal. Information about how to submit such comments is available at www.crso.info. 

[1] Nat’l Wildlife Federation v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59195 (D. Or. 2016).

[2] www.crso.info

[3] 40 C.F.R § 1502.9

New studies have shown that a large number of older farmers are concerned with their ability to find a successor who is able to afford to buy their land, thus putting their plans for retirement at risk. Currently, the average age of the American farmer is 58 years old. Only less than 6% of American farmers are 35 years old or younger. With the vast majority of farmers nearing the average American retirement age, it is not surprising that over 60% of farmland is ready to be passed onto the next generation of farmers.

The problem is that the younger generation of farmers is losing the battle of being able to afford the land. According to a recent study by American Farmland Trust (”AFT”), land values are set too high for prospective landowners. This puts the land at risk while the banks, equity firms, and larger corporate farms take advantage of these opportunities to snatch up the land that the younger farmers cannot afford. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) has shown that 2 of the biggest hurdles faced by the next generation of farmers are accessing credit for, and finding affordable farmland. Being bought out by larger corporations, or even just the threat of the possibility, along with stress of qualifying for a loan and finding affordable land, has led to a large number of younger farmers leaving the farming industry.

How Can You Help?

So, how do we help? The USDA and the AFT are working on programs to assist beginning farmers and ranchers enter the field and help pay farmers for the development rights to their land. But there are ways we all can help. Some examples include: buying direct, purchasing produce from farmers’ markets, or joining community supported agriculture programs.  For more information, please see http://civileats.com/2016/08/05/digested-farm-together-now/

Rights-of Way on Public Lands and Administrative Avoidance

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Jakob Wiley, a concurrent student at Oregon State University’s Water Resources Policy and Management graduate program and a law student at the University of Oregon School of Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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