The Greater Idaho Movement is a fascinating and complex effort that has gained traction in recent years. This movement seeks to redraw the state boundaries. Several counties in eastern Oregon would become part of Idaho. The primary motivation behind this movement is the cultural and political differences between the rural, conservative eastern Oregon and the more urban, liberal western part of the state. 

Water: A Critical Issue in the Greater Idaho Movement

One of the critical issues at the heart of this movement is water rights. Water is a precious resource in the arid regions of eastern Oregon and Idaho. The management of water rights is crucial for agriculture, industry, and residential use. Water rights in the western United States are governed by the doctrine of prior appropriation, which essentially means “first in time, first in right.” This doctrine has been the foundation of water law in both Oregon and Idaho for over a century. However, the implementation and management of these rights can vary significantly between states.

In Oregon, water rights are managed by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). The state has a comprehensive water management plan that includes strict regulations on water usage, conservation efforts, and environmental protections. In addition, OWRD has ceded its application processes in large part to the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW). These regulations can sometimes be viewed as burdensome by farmers and ranchers in eastern Oregon. They feel that their needs are not adequately represented in the state’s policies.

Idaho, on the other hand, has a more fluid approach to water management. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) oversees water rights at the State level, but there is generally more local control and flexibility in how water is allocated and used.  Additional agencies, such as state fish and wildlife do not oversee or inform IDWR’s work. This approach is often seen as more favorable by those in the agricultural sector, as it allows for more adaptive management practices that can better respond to local conditions.

What if the Greater Idaho Movement Succeeds?

If the Greater Idaho Movement were to succeed, the counties that join Idaho would transition from Oregon’s water management system to Idaho’s. This shift could have several implications:

1. Regulatory Changes: Farmers and ranchers in these counties might experience a reduction in regulatory burdens, allowing for more flexible water usage. This could lead to increased agricultural productivity and economic benefits for the region.
2. Water Allocation: The change in state governance could also impact how water is allocated among different users. Idaho’s system might provide more opportunities for local stakeholders to influence water management decisions. That could lead to more equitable distribution of water resources.
3. Environmental Concerns: While the transition might benefit agricultural users, there could be concerns about the environmental impacts of less stringent water regulations. A critical challenge will be ensuring that water usage remains sustainable and that ecosystems are protected.
4. Interstate Water Compacts: The movement could also affect existing interstate water compacts and agreements. These legal agreements govern the allocation of water from shared rivers and aquifers between states. Any changes in state boundaries would require renegotiation of these compacts to ensure fair distribution of water resources.

Conclusion

The Greater Idaho Movement is more than just a political and cultural shift. It has significant implications for water rights and resource management. As the movement continues to evolve, it will be essential to carefully consider how these changes will impact the people and ecosystems that depend on water in this region. Balancing the needs of agricultural users with environmental sustainability will be key to ensuring a prosperous future for all involved.

Schroeder Law Offices works with clients in both Idaho and Oregon as well as Nevada, Washington and Utah.

House Bill 3419: What’s Next for Well Monitoring and Reporting?

Oregon House Bill 3419  has the potential to restrict how much water homeowners can pump from their exempt (non-permitted) wells. It requires meters to record water usage. This bill also focuses on constructing consistency in how water use is measured and reported, in hopes to refine water enforcement procedures.

Most types of water use require the user to obtain a permit from the Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”). But Oregon law currently considers domestic use of up to 15,000 gallons of groundwater per day, including irrigation of lawns and non-commercial gardens less than one-half acre, exempt from permitting and reporting requirements. This could change under HB 3419.

Public Feedback

Public response to House Bill 3419 has been mixed. While environmental protection organizations like WaterWatch of Oregon, the Nature Conservancy, and the Oregon Environmental Council support the passage of House Bill 3419, many individuals have provided public comments in opposition. The Oregon Water Resources Congress (“OWRC”) also opposes HB 3419, stating, “We are not opposed generally to measurement and reporting… However [HB 3419] would provide OWRD with overly broad authority that will only compete with and undermine other ongoing water management efforts.”

Mark Owens, Oregon State Representative for House District 60, has said he is opposed to any bill that would establish constraints for rural residents who rely on exempt wells for their domestic water. House District 60 includes Baker, Grant, Harney, Lake, Malheur, and part of Deschutes Counties in central and eastern Oregon. Many residents of these rural counties rely on private wells to obtain domestic water. Owens’ aim is to make things less complicated for Oregonians. H wants to ensure access to secure and reliable water for their homes. He spoke about possibly setting up a fund to support repairs and replacements of wells that have been affected by droughts, fires, and contamination.

Conclusion

It is important that well owners, especially those who rely on exempt wells for domestic use, maintain awareness of potential rules and regulations that could require additional procedure concerning their water access. House Bill 3419 is currently in front of the Oregon House Committee on Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources, and Water. There are no scheduled hearings on this bill, and the deadline to submit testimony has expired. We will continue to monitor the progress of HB 3419, so check back for updates! If you’re interested in learning more about ongoing water right issues, visit our the Schroeder Law Offices, PC blog!

More Information about House Bill 3419

1. Oregon Well Owners Face New Restrictions: State Proposes Controversial Monitoring Plan – The Hillsboro Herald
2. Farmers fret water meter mandate (HB 3419 hearing) | Oregon Catalyst
3. Good News – The Oregon Legislature is Not Trying to Meter Your Domestic Well – Oregon Property Owners Association
4. Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources, and Water House 2025 Regular Session – Oregon Legislative Information System
5. OWRC Testimony

USCID Call for Papers – Consider Participating!

The United States Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (USCID www.uscid.org) is excited to announce the call for papers for its Annual Conference, scheduled to take place from October 21-24, 2025, in Reno, Nevada. This year’s conference will focus on the critical issues surrounding water supply and demand, emphasizing sustainable basin water management in the face of increasing scarcity and competing uses.

Conference Overview

The USCID Conference in Reno aims to address the challenges of water planning and management, particularly in the context of agricultural, urban, and environmental demands. With changing weather patterns, regulatory constraints, and the evolving science of hydrology and hydrogeology, the conference will explore innovative solutions to ensure reliable water supplies and effective resource management.

Call for Papers

USCID invites abstracts for papers and presentations that align with the conference’s themes. Authors can submit abstracts for either a 20-minute oral presentation with a paper or a 15-minute oral presentation without a paper. Accepted papers will be included in the Conference Proceedings, providing a valuable resource for attendees and the broader water management community.

Key Topics

The conference will cover a wide range of topics, including but not limited to:

1. Basin Water Management and Governance

   • Basin supply and demand management
   • Regional management governance structures
   • Implementing sustainable groundwater basin rules

2. Competing Uses of Water

   • Shared facilities
   • Surface water/groundwater exchanges

     • Recycling and wastewater reuse

3. Water Planning

   • Integrating regional water resources
   • Reservoir management and operation modeling
   • Stakeholder involvement

4. Water Supply and Demand Management

   • Urban and agricultural irrigation conservation
   • Deficit irrigation and drought management
   • Salinity and water quality management

5. Water Transfers

   • Water rights concerns
   • Improvements in agricultural and urban water transfers
   • Environmental permitting and policy

6. Technologies

   • Evapotranspiration and consumptive use
   • Flow measurement and SCADA systems
   • Precision irrigation and smart device applications

Submission Guidelines

Authors are encouraged to submit a 250-300 word abstract, including the paper or presentation title, author names and affiliations, and contact information. Abstracts should be submitted as a .doc or .docx file to megan@agamsi.com by May 1, 2025.

Important Dates

• Abstracts Due: May 1, 2025
• Notification to Authors: May 15, 2025
• Draft Papers Due: July 15, 2025
• Comments to Authors: August 15, 2025
• Final Papers Due: September 15, 2025
• Conference Dates: October 21-24, 2025

Join us in Reno for an engaging and informative conference that promises to advance the field of irrigation and drainage. We look forward to your contributions and participation in this important event. For more information, visit USCID’s call for papers website.

Oregon Snowpack: A Winter Wonderland in 2025

With the first day of spring just around the corner, Oregon’s snowpack is now a topic of significant interest and importance. This year, Oregon has experienced remarkable snowfall, leading to a snowpack that is not only above average but also the best in the western United States. What does this record-breaking year mean for the region?

A Record-Breaking Oregon Snowpack

As of February 2025, Oregon’s snowpack has reached an impressive 144% of normal levels with all watersheds at 77% or higher of median snow-water levels. The John Day, Malheur, Harney, and Lake County-Goose Lake watersheds all have more than 150% of median snow-water levels. The levels across the state look very similar to those in 2019.

The accumulation is due to a series of cold winter storms providing large amounts of snow across the state. The heavy snowfall has been a welcome sight for many, especially after several years of fluctuating snowpack that raised concerns about water supply and drought conditions. Oregon has enjoyed a successful winter ski season. Skiing is expected to continue far into the spring, with many ski areas near or at 100 inches of snow.

Implications for Water Supply

This substantial Oregon snowpack is not only enjoyed for recreational winter snow uses. It also bodes well for water users during the rest of the year. The current snowpack levels are a positive sign for Oregon’s water supply. With snowpack levels well above average, the state is better positioned to meet water demands for agricultural and recreational uses, especially with irrigation seasons starting in March. The ample snowpack reduces the immediate risk of drought, providing a buffer against dry conditions that could arise later in the year.

Looking Ahead

While the current Oregon snowpack levels are encouraging, it is important to remain cautious. In recent years, strong snowpacks have melted too quickly due to early warm temperatures in spring and summer. This faster melting reduces the snowpack’s ability to prevent wildfires. It is wise to approach the season with caution and to be well-prepared.

All in all, this is good news for Oregon water users, and we will hope for a bountiful summer.

The 2025 Nevada Legislative Session has begun. It’s looking like a busy session for water bills. Four bills caught my attention and we thought we should share them with you!

Assembly Bill 134

AB 134 proposes to amend NRS Chapter 533 to allow owners of a perfected water rights to submit water conservation plans to the State Engineer for approval. The goal of the bill is to “promote and encourage the conservation, development, augmentation and efficient use of the waters of this State through the use of practices for the voluntary conservation of water, including, without limitation, water conservation plans, crop rotation or conversion, improved irrigation practices and reductions in surface and seepage losses of water at the place of use of water.”

The main perk for those with approved conservation plans is that their water rights are not subject to abandonment pursuant to NRS 534.090.

Assembly Bill 104 and Senate Bill 36

AB 104 proposes to establish an Account for Retiring Water Rights and the Nevada Voluntary Water Rights Retirement Program (“Program”) to be administered by the Director of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (“Director”).

The Program would allow the Director to accept applications for the purchase and retirement of water rights until June 30, 2035. Under this proposal, the State Engineer will retire the water rights that are purchased and the water will not be available for appropriation. SB 36 has nearly identical provisions but calls the Program the Nevada Water Buy-Back Initiative.

Also contained in AB 104 is a section proposing to change the name of temporary permits to revocable permits. There is also a section prohibiting domestic well drilling if the property is within 1,250 feet of a public entity service line.

Assembly Bill 265

            AB 265 proposes to amend NRS Chapter 533 to require the Nevada Division of Water Resources to notify water appropriation applicants if a committee is assigned to review the application. The bill places deadlines on the committee to complete the application review within 30 days after the protest deadline passes if no protests are timely filed, and within 60 days if a protest is received. The bill goes on to set deadlines for the State Engineer to act on other processes including reviewing applications for water use, extension of time applications, and confirming reports of conveyance to update water right ownership inforamation.

Lastly, under AB 265, the State Engineer will be required to notify a permit holder 30 days before the due date that a permit will be held in cancellation if a proof of completion of work or proof of application of water to beneficial use is not filed.

Take Aways from the 2025 Legislative Session

            These bills illustrate the increasing necessity to conserve water resources in Nevada while safeguarding senior priority water rights. Additionally, AB 265 addresses the increasing concern over the backlog in the State Engineer’s office. It sets deadlines to allow for the prompt administration of water rights. Now it will be up to the State Legislature and the Governor to decide if these bills will become law.

TAXING FARMERS BASED ON WATER AVAILABILITY

Attorney Laura Schroeder recently returned from Egypt.  She shares in this article the use of nilometers in ancient Egypt that offers a fascinating intersection of law, administration, and environmental science. These devices were pivotal in determining tax rates based on the annual flooding of the Nile River, highlighting the sophisticated legal and administrative systems of one of history’s most enduring civilizations.

Nilometers remained in use from the pharaonic period until the Aswan High Dam rendered them obsolete in the 1960s

Legal Framework and Taxation

In ancient Egypt, taxation was deeply tied to the Nile’s water levels, as measured by nilometers. These structures were essentially water gauges. They determined whether the annual flood would result in a prosperous harvest or a poor yield. A higher flood level indicated fertile soil and abundant crops, leading to higher taxes. Lower levels signaled drought and reduced taxes. The measurements were critical for setting equitable tax rates, ensuring that farmers were taxed based on their actual agricultural output potential.

Administrative Oversight

The process of measuring water levels and determining taxes was carefully regulated. During the Abbasid period, for example, nilometer readings were supervised by judges appointed by the Sultan to ensure accuracy and fairness. This reflects an early form of legal oversight to prevent corruption or manipulation in tax collection.

Broader Implications

Nilometers also held symbolic and spiritual significance. Often located within temples or adorned with Quranic verses during later periods, they represented the divine connection between the Nile’s bounty and societal prosperity. This dual role underscores how legal systems in ancient Egypt intertwined with religious and cultural practices.

Conclusion

The nilometer exemplifies how ancient Egyptian rulers utilized natural phenomena to create a structured taxation system. It not only ensured revenue for public projects but also established a legal precedent for fair taxation based on measurable criteria. This innovative approach resonates with modern principles of tax law, where income or productivity often determines tax liability.  Attorney Schroeder suggests that a similar approach to taxation of farmers in the US might be more appropriate!

Is Specialized Training for Nevada Water Judges Working?

Most agree that the Nevada Supreme Court’s initiative to provide specialized training for Nevada water judges was a significant step towards improving the adjudication of water law cases in the state. However, the jury is still out when it comes to determining the overall success of the program. This initiative, launched as a pilot program in January 2024, aims to enhance the expertise of district court judges in handling complex water law issues.

Pilot Program for Training Nevada Water Judges

The Water Judges Pilot Program follows extensive research and recommendations by the Commission to Study the Adjudication of Water Law Cases. The program mandates that the 15 judges who have completed the specialized training, preside over water law cases. This training is designed to cover key topics in water law and technical issues, ensuring that judges are well-equipped to handle the intricacies of these cases.

The certification process involves judges submitting an application and completing a training program. Supreme Court Rule 18, which outlines the criteria for water law cases and the assignment process. governs the program.  Nevada looks to the Dividing the Waters[2] program at the National Judicial College for curriculum and will require these Nevad water judges to undergo continued legal education. So far the program has not heard many cases, suspecting the reprieve in drought and abundant water supply in the last few years as correlating with the reduced number in cases coming before court. However, the program will likely reconvene at the end of the three-year pilot time period to review the statistics to assess the success of the program.

Justice Parraguirre’s Insights at the NWRA Conference

At the recent Nevada Water Resources Association (NWRA) conference, Justice Ron Parraguirre of the Nevada Supreme Court delivered a keynote presentation highlighting the progress and challenges of the pilot program for Nevada water judges. Justice Parraguirre emphasized the importance of specialized training in ensuring efficient and consistent administration of water law cases. Justice Parraguirre also discussed the ongoing efforts to refine the training curriculum based on feedback from Judges and stakeholders.  Currently, the program is aimed at NRS Chapter 533 use in management of water use, regulating and understanding surface water and groundwater connections, water rights adjudications, and understanding vested and subordinate water rights, among others. 

Justice Parraguirre’s presentation underscored efforts in the judiciary and at NWRA in addressing water law and technical issues. He praised the NWRA for its role in providing valuable resources and training opportunities for all water professionals. Justice Parraguirre advised that the one thing water experts can do better is teach!  Being able to break down concepts and teach those in the court room is key to the successful and consistent administration of water cases.

For more on Nevada Water Law see Nevada Archives – Schroeder Law Offices, PC

Water Use Efficiency and Conservation in Las Vegas: A Model for Arid Cities

Las Vegas, a city renowned for its vibrant nightlife and extravagant resorts, is also becoming a beacon of water use efficiency and conservation. Nestled in the Mojave Desert, Las Vegas faces unique challenges in managing its water resources. With approximately 90% of its water supply coming from the Colorado River, the city has had to innovate and implement stringent measures to ensure sustainable water use.

The Challenge of Water Scarcity

The Southwest United States, including Las Vegas, has been grappling with prolonged droughts and decreasing water levels in the Colorado River. This situation has necessitated a shift from water abundance to water use efficiency. Las Vegas, with its growing population and tourism industry, has had to adopt aggressive water-saving strategies to meet its needs without exhausting its resources.

Innovative Water Conservation Measures

One of the most notable initiatives is the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s (SNWA) turf removal program. This program incentivizes residents and businesses to replace water-intensive grass with drought-tolerant landscaping. Since its inception, the program has successfully removed approximately 200 million square feet of turf, saving significant amounts of water.

In addition to turf removal, Las Vegas has implemented several other measures:

• Water Restrictions: The city has imposed strict regulations on water use, including limiting pool sizes, restricting personal car washing, and prohibiting the installation of new swamp coolers.
• Leak Detection and Repair: The SNWA has a robust system for detecting and repairing leaks, ensuring that water is not wasted through infrastructure inefficiencies.
• Efficient Fixtures and Appliances: Programs encouraging the use of water-efficient fixtures and appliances in homes and businesses have been highly effective. These upgrades not only save water but also reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

The Impact of Conservation Efforts

The results of these efforts have been impressive. Over the past two decades, Southern Nevada has added about 750,000 residents while reducing its Colorado River water consumption by 31%. This achievement underscores the effectiveness of the city’s water management strategies and serves as a model for other arid regions facing similar challenges.

Creative Solutions for Future Growth

Innovative water conservation strategies are not just about survival; they are key to enabling future growth. Cities that adopt creative solutions such as rainwater harvesting, greywater recycling, and smart irrigation technologies can manage their water resources more efficiently. These methods help cities to sustain their populations and support economic development even in the face of diminishing water supplies.

For instance, rainwater harvesting systems capture and store rainwater for various uses, reducing the demand on municipal water supplies. Greywater recycling systems allow the reuse of water from sinks, showers, and washing machines for non-potable purposes, significantly lowering freshwater demand. Smart irrigation technologies optimize water use in landscaping by adjusting to weather conditions and soil moisture levels, ensuring that green spaces receive the precise amount of water needed.

Conclusion

Las Vegas’ journey towards water efficiency and conservation is a testament to the power of innovative thinking and proactive management. By adopting a comprehensive approach that includes regulatory measures, technological advancements, and community engagement, Las Vegas is not only securing its water future but also setting an example for other cities in arid regions. As climate change continues to impact water availability, the lessons learned from Las Vegas’ experience will be invaluable in shaping sustainable water management practices worldwide.

Creative water conservation strategies will allow cities to grow sustainably, ensuring that they can thrive even as water resources become increasingly scarce. By embracing these innovative solutions, cities can secure their future and continue to prosper.

References

[1] Flowing forward: 5 strategies for cities to become water-wise

[2] Urban Water Conservation Techniques | Green City Times

As the writer at the Federal Reserve Bank commented in his article Are Water Resources Keeping Up with U.S. Economic Needs? – San Francisco Fed water is not something we can transport from a water rich area to a water poor one.  While the research studies cited in the article advise that the United States is not over-all water short, the arable where the United States depends for its fresh fruits and vegetables, are those areas most water short. 

The unstated suggestion of the author is simply that we could move agricultural production to the water rich areas. But the author does not opine on what crops can be grown in the “water rich” areas.  It may be that if indeed we must move crop production to the Midwest where the growing season does not produce 3-5 crops per year of the vegetables that US citizen have come to love from southern California that American’s diets will be require change or that a larger share of individual gross income will be spent on food.

Integrated Water Resources Strategy: Oregon IWRS

IWRS means Oregon’s statewide Integrated Water Resources Strategy. On November 12, 2024, six Oregon departments hosted a public meeting to discuss IWRS priorities for the next five to 7 years. Sponsoring departments included:

• Water Resources Department
• Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Department of Environmental Quality
• Department of Agriculture
• Watershed Enhancement Board
• Department of Land Conservation and Development

Over 50 people attended both online and in person in Salem, including Schroeder Law Offices, to learn what the agencies believed were the most important actions for the state to take related to water quality and quantity concerns.

What IWRS Is

The IWRS is a state-wide initiative for inter-agency communication to understand Oregon’s instream and out-of-stream water needs. Governor Kotek requested a pause on IWRS after the agencies issued the first draft of the priorities since many agencies were transitioning to new directors.

The IWRS has 47 required actions, and the agencies decided to break these actions down into three “buckets”. They are titled 1) Prevent Things from Getting Worse; 2) Optimize: Highest and Best Use; and 3) Help Communities Prepare and Adapt.

The first bucket concerns sustainable practices and limiting and reducing contamination of water resources. The second bucket concerns prioritizing innovative water solutions and data-driven projects for decision-making. The third bucket concerns informing the public of what the “water future” looks like, helping economies adapt to water changes, and increasing volunteer-based incentive programs for target priorities. The public had the opportunity to comment on the agencies’ priorities. They provided questions and feedback as well.

Commenters questioned the lack of enforcement language within the goals from the Department of Environmental Quality, such as in the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area. This area, referred to as the “LUBGWMA,” experiences challenges with nitrate levels in domestic wells that are not connected to a community or municipal system. Commenters also questioned the scale of the projects to ensure the projects could be feasibly implemented in all communities.

Next Draft Coming in January, 2025

The agencies will publish the next draft for the IWRS in January 2025 which will include these priority areas. The public can submit comments to the draft IWRS. If you have interest in these projects or concerns, be sure to submit comments to the agencies for their consideration. After public review and comment, the agencies will present the draft to the Water Resources Commission in March 2025 for a workshop discussion. The agencies expect to provide the Final Draft of the IWRS to Water Resources Commission in late Spring 2025, with a hope of official adoption in June 2025.

Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. legal assistant Melissa Teter, has volunteered at The Growers  Grange, a local farm in Corbett, OR, for the last two growing seasons. The Growers Grange is a small farm run by Bianca and Ethan Nati. Their focus is on preserving their Italian tradition by growing heirloom vegetables and fruit.

In addition to vegetable production for the local community and restaurants, Nati’s utilize 1/8 of an acre for saving seeds of select crops for True Love Seeds and The Italian Garden Projects. Some favorite produce grown by the Nati’s are eggplant, basil, garlic, Anellino beans, a variety of peppers, and of course, tomatoes.

In 2023, Natis added fig trees in collaboration with The Italian Garden Project’s Legacy Fig Collection. They are hoping to offer fruit from these trees in a few years.

While volunteering, Melissa helped harvest, seed, and weed, and even participated in a work share program where in exchange for her work, she received a box of produce. In addition to produce, the farm hosts goats, geese, and chickens, as well as 4 large guard dogs that deter bears and cougars. Mateen, the oldest of the dogs is pictured below.

Melissa’s favorite volunteer activities included trying new fruits and vegetables that she otherwise would not have tried and learning more about farming in Oregon.

Did You Know? Rice Crops in California Use Water Efficiently

California is renowned for its rich agricultural diversity. It produces almonds, avocados, grapes, and pistachios. Having an arid climate the state must use water efficiently.

Did you know California is the second-largest rice producer in the United States? Thanks to their Mediterranean climate—with sparse rain and cool nights— the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys are perfect for rice growing. Rice there takes up about 500,000 acres. In particular Sacramento Valley’s clay soil effectively retains moisture, creating optimal growing conditions. The average yield is over four tons of rice per acre. California’s rice industry contributes over $775 million to the state economy.

Rice is grown in paddies

Driving through the Sacramento Valley, you might have seen submerged rice crops, or paddies. Earthen levees. surround the paddies where rice grows. This method not only curtails weed growth but also acts as a natural herbicide.

The precise amount of water used to prevent weed growth is highly important, as water that is too deep may inhibit rice stand establishment, while water that is too shallow may still allow weed seed germination. On average, it takes 370 gallons of water to produce 2.2 pounds of rice, consuming an estimated 34-43% of the world’s irrigation water. Rice crops must use water efficiently!

Tricks for using water efficiently

While rice may use a lot of water, rice farmers have found ways to utilize every drop of water efficiently, allowing the water to flow from one field to the next in the levee system. With separate field channels water is delivered to individual seed beds as needed. The precise time and location of irrigation and prevents runoff. Shallow tillage operations and puddling further help to prevent water loss.

Any remaining standing water percolates and re-charges groundwater and surface water. Hence, when planning new or existing crops, considering your water rights is crucial to comply with statewide water regulations while ensuring you will have enough water to grow your crops.

Shareholder attorney Therese Stix visited Lundberg Family Farms in Richvale, California and learned firsthand about the water use, efficiencies, and delivery means and methods in rice growing operations. She enjoyed the passion the Lundberg Family has for growing rice.

The McCarran Amendment

A current Ninth Circuit Case could upset pre-1952 water rights adjudications in certain circumstances!

Enacted by Congress in 1952, the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666, waives the United States’ sovereign immunity in state court water rights adjudications. The Amendment acknowledges the power of a state to regulate ownership and use of the waters within its boundaries. This allows the federal government to be joined as a defendant in a suit to determine ownership and priority of water rights from a particular source.

But, what happens in the circumstance where vested water rights were adjudicated before the McCarran Amendment was enacted? If the federal government could have joined state adjudication proceedings in the past, and chose not to, can they still assert reserved water rights to the fully adjudicated water source?

The Challenge

That is precisely the issue that arose in the Nevada federal court case Backer Ranches, Inc. v. Haaland. In Baker Ranches, owners of decreed water rights to Baker and Lehman Creeks sued the United States for interfering with their water rights to the creeks.

The state court adjudication establishing the owner’s water rights to Baker and Lehman Creeks occurred in 1934, before the McCarran Amendment. Because the federal government had sovereign immunity to state court proceedings concerning water rights at the time, the federal government was not a party to the adjudication, though it was informed and provided with updates about the proceedings.

Years later, the federal government allegedly began to divert the flows of the creeks, interfering with the plaintiffs’ decreed water rights and triggering the lawsuit. The federal government moved to dismiss the case, claiming that it had reserved water rights superior to the plaintiffs and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the federal government was not a party to the 1934 adjudication and had sovereign immunity.

Plaintiffs argued that the McCarran Amendment waived federal sovereign immunity and that the state adjudication should control ownership and use of the water at issue. The court ultimately sided with the federal government, noting that the waiver of sovereign immunity found in the McCarran Act only applied to circumstances where the adjudication of water rights is comprehensive – i.e. when all parties asserting water rights are able to participate in the adjudication.

District Court Findings

The court found that the federal government’s reserved water rights were not part of the 1934 adjudication and that the federal government had not waived its sovereign immunity. Hence, the court dismissed the case, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court’s decision to dismiss the case is currently being appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

If the court’s decision in Baker Ranches is upheld it has the potential to upset what has been considered settled priorities for water use throughout the arid western United States. If upheld, the federal government will have the ability to assert reserved water rights to a water source that has already been adjudicated in state court if the adjudication occurred before the passage of the McCarran Amendment and the federal government was not a party. In certain circumstances, the result could be as drastic as the complete loss of an individual’s water use.

Schroeder Law Offices is happy to review your circumstances with you.

On September 17th, 2024, the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) implemented new groundwater rules that have sparked significant debate. While these rules aim to promote sustainable water use, they also raise several concerns that merit discussion.

Arbitrary Power and Political Influence

One of the primary criticisms of the new groundwater rules is that they grant the OWRD considerable discretionary power. The department can now deny groundwater permits based on criteria that some argue are too subjective and potentially influenced by the political climate at the time of filing. This level of control could lead to inconsistent decision-making, where permit approvals or denials hinge more on the prevailing political winds than on objective, scientific assessments.

New Groundwater Rules: Development by Unelected Officials

Another contentious point is that these rules were developed by unelected officials. The process involved various advisory committees and consultations, but ultimately, the decision-making power rested with individuals who are not directly accountable to the public. This has led to concerns about transparency and the democratic legitimacy of the rule-making process.

Influence of Powerful Non-Profit Organizations

The involvement of powerful non-profit organizations in shaping the new groundwater rules has also been a point of contention. Groups such as the Oregon Environmental Council and WaterWatch of Oregon played significant roles in the advisory process. While these organizations advocate for important environmental causes, their influence raises questions about whose interests are being prioritized. Critics argue that the rules may reflect the agendas of these groups more than the needs of all Oregonians.

Balancing Conservation and Agriculture

Water conservation is undeniably crucial, especially in the face of climate change and increasing water scarcity. However, the new groundwater rules must also consider the needs of Oregon’s robust agriculture industry. Agriculture is a vital part of the state’s economy, and overly restrictive water regulations could harm farmers and ranchers who rely on groundwater for irrigation and livestock.

Conclusion

While the new groundwater rules aim to address critical issues of sustainability and resource management, they also present several challenges. The potential for arbitrary decision-making, the influence of unelected officials and powerful non-profits, and the impact on the agriculture industry are all significant concerns that need to be addressed. Moving forward, it is essential to find a balanced approach that ensures water conservation while respecting the diverse needs of all Oregonians.

At Schroeder Law Offices, P.C., we can assist you in navigating the new and evermore complicated water laws in Oregon. Please contact us at (503) 281-4100 if you have any questions. Or for more about water rights in Oregon see this article.

At Schroeder Law Offices we are dedicated to providing exceptional service to our clients. Leveraging advanced technology like TABS3, NetDocuments, Zoom, and Microsoft 365 helps us achieve this goal. They streamline our operations and enhance client satisfaction.

TABS3: Leveraging Technology in Practice Management

TABS3 is a comprehensive practice management software that benefits clients in several ways:

• Efficient Billing and Accounting: Automated billing cycles and detailed financial reports ensure transparency and accuracy. You always know where your case stands financially.
• Accurate Time Tracking: We meticulously track every billable hour, ensuring fair and accurate billing for the time dedicated to your case.
• Organized Case Management: TABS3 centralizes all case-related information, allowing us to manage your case files, deadlines, and communications efficiently.

NetDocuments: Leveraging Technology in Document Management

NetDocuments is our go-to solution for managing legal documents securely and efficiently:

• Secure Cloud Storage: Your documents are stored securely in the cloud, making them accessible from anywhere, which is valuable for remote consultations and collaboration.
• Robust Security and Compliance: NetDocuments protects your sensitive information with top-notch encryption and access controls, ensuring compliance with industry standards.
• Seamless Collaboration: Our team can collaborate on documents in real-time, leading to faster turnaround times and reduced risk of errors.
• Quick Document Retrieval: Advanced search capabilities allow us to locate your documents quickly, ensuring prompt responses to your needs.

Zoom: Leveraging Technology for Remote Consultations

Zoom enables us to connect with you no matter where you are:

• Virtual Meetings: We can hold virtual consultations, making it convenient for you to discuss your case without needing to travel.
• Secure Communication: Zoom provides secure, encrypted communication, ensuring your privacy during our meetings.
• Flexibility: Whether you’re at home or on the go, Zoom allows us to stay connected and keep you updated on your case.
• Integrated Phone, Meetings and Webinars: Zoom handles all our voice and video from internal and external phone calls to client meetings to webinars.

Microsoft 365: Leveraging Technology for Productivity and Collaboration

Microsoft 365 is an essential tool for our daily operations:

• Email Management: Outlook integrates seamlessly with NetDocuments so that we can manage our communications efficiently, ensuring timely responses and organized email history.
• Document Creation and Sharing: Tools like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint allow us to create, edit, and share documents.

Conclusion

At Schroeder Law Offices embracing technology is essential to delivering the best possible service to our clients. TABS3, NetDocuments, Zoom, and Microsoft 365 are just a few examples of how we leverage advanced tools to manage our practice more effectively. By using these technologies, we can focus on what we do best—advocating for you and achieving the best outcomes for your legal matters.

Thank you for trusting us with your legal needs. If you have any questions about how we use technology to your benefit please call or email.

The Chevron deference two-step is no longer. A once powerful doctrine applicable to judicial review of administrative action is overruled by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The outcome is no surprise, Chief Justice John Roberts long found Chevron as an inappropriate leverage of executive power over the judiciary branch.

Chevron deference required Courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of relevant legislation unless the agency’s interpretation was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”[1] Essentially, Chevron found that federal agents are the subject matter experts and thus better suited to interpret congressional intent and thereby promulgate administrative rules relevant to achieving legislative objectives. Thus, deference to the agency.

Critics of Chevron deference believe the Loper decision will usher an era of transparent rulemaking. Others, fond of strong deference to agency action, find Loper to be at odds with stare decisis and curtails agency ability to carry out congressional directives.

What is Chevron Deference?

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (or “Chevron”)was decided in the backdrop of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Congress wished to establish judicial review procedures for agency rulemaking and adjudication.

Since the APA did not clarify that legislative and regulatory interpretation weighed in favor of the agency, Chevron was the Supreme Court’s set out a two-step analysis to support deference to the agency. The first step requires the Court to recognize whether the law requires or forbids the agency interpretation of a legislative directive. If the Court finds that the agency is making an explication within the vague boundaries of the law, then the Court cannot implement its own statutory analysis. The second step of Chevron requires a finding that the agency interpretation is reasonable. However, if an agency satisfies step one, then it is very likely the agency will succeed on step two. To learn more about the Chevron two-step and how it came under review by the Supreme Court, visit our previous post: Chevron Deference, a Complicated Legacy.

What Loper Does

Loper ends the Chevron deference doctrine. The Supreme Court in this decision relied on the APA and Article III incompatibility with Chevron’s directive that the judicial branch defer questions of law to the executive branch. Further, Chief Justice Roberts argued that Chevron clouded administrative rulemaking as the “two-step” approach permitted various agency interpretations of the same legislative directive. He found that such broad allowance of agency power led to more confusion and litigation. In essence, rather than clarifying the APA, Roberts argued that Chevron complicated administrative law. It was also argued that Chevron was unconstitutional as questions of law belonged to the judicial branch rather than the executive branch as favoring legal analyses of agencies unconstitutionally empowered unelected officials to promulgate rules under the guise of poorly worded laws. This, in this Court’s opinion, is within the province of the judicial branch.

What Does this Mean for Water Law?

            Not much. Water law is governed by state law, not federal law.  Chevron and now Loper are applications of agency deference to federal law. Each state has its own administrative procedures act and case law supporting agency deference.  So, time will tell whether we see any respective following in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah, which all handle agency deference differently.  In the meantime, we can assume that hearing officers will continue to make the gross assumption that the “agency is always right unless proven wrong”!

Conclusion

            United States Senators and Representatives may be accused of relying on ambiguously written laws to avoid alienating voters by “passing the buck” on politically appointed administrative officers to interpret vague statutes in their favor. This may promote efficient and detailed law making within the federal legislative branch. This, one can argue, provides greater transparency and empowers voters to hold federal representatives accountable for inaction on important issues that were once delegated to agency rulemaking. Regardless, what is certain is that Loper will make future challenges to agency rulemaking easier.

 Here at Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. we follow legal developments to ensure our clients are offered the best possible advice. If you have any questions regarding your water rights, please contact us at (503) 281-4100 or check out our website www.water-law.com

[1] 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

The United States Committee for Irrigation and Drainage (USCID) fall conference registration is now open. www.uscid.org  As the current president of this organization, I’m letting my “friends of Schroeder Law Offices” know what we are up to when not working in the office representing our clients.

What is USCID?

The USCID is a non-profit organization dedicated to sharing and collaborating on all water issues. These especially relate to planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of irrigation, drainage and flow control works. They particularly include agricultural economics; water law; and environmental and social issues affecting irrigated agriculture.  As you might tell, given my upbringing in irrigated agriculture, these are all areas near and dear to me.  With all the challenges facing water use in the United States, this organization of scientists, engineers, extension representatives, irrigation managers, agency representatives, policy makers, and product engineers and manufactures, is the place to be when it comes to learning about cutting edge developments and studies in handing the ever-increasing water scarcity. 

At Schroeder Law Offices, we strive to understand water use in all facets from growing food and fiber and supplying safe water supplies for our clients. Participating in these organizations it keeps us in touch with cutting edge ideas and solutions that help us better serve our clients. 

The USCID Fall Conference

The USCID Fall Conference, on Implementing Sustainable Water Management, is open for registration.  The conference this year will be in Sacramento, October 1-4^th.  Please consider joining this important organization and attending our conference.  In addition to the “conference room” presentations providing valuable educational opportunities, the USCID planning committee has lined up some great tours.  Tuesday morning’s tour will head to Vacaville and visit the Solano Irrigation District.  Here we will learn what SID has done to modernize its irrigation system to bring more accurate delivery to its constituents. 

Friday’s tour, will head to Oroville Dam and Lundberg Family Farms.  Oroville is the tallest earth-fill dams in the United States at 770 feet high and 6920 feet long.  We experience the dam up close to learn about the spillway failure in 2017 and its emergency recovery and repair.  We will also learn about the importance of the dam in supporting agriculture, power generation and flood control. At Lundberg Family Farms, we will learn about the farming operations for various varieties of rice. We will learn about the Lundberg Family’s dedication to sustainability in crop nourishment and use of water.  Lundberg is a regenerative organic certified operation and has a goal of moving its organic operation to 100% regenerative organic certified by 2027.

Along with the tours, the planning committee has accepted around 30 presentations to bring you a well rounded conference focusing on Implementing Sustainable Water Management.  I am especially interested in learning some of these sustainable water management strategies as I hope to take them back to Nevada as we struggle with implementing a conjunctive management system on the Humboldt River.

We hope to see you there!

Therese

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!

In April 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced a new maximum contaminant level (“MCL”) for monitoring and regulation of six PFAS (Perfluoroalky and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, aka “forever chemicals”).

PFAS are identified by extremely strong bonds of fluorine and carbon which do not easily disintegrate in the environment or in the human body. These “forever chemicals” have been utilized since the 1940’s because they are highly effective at repelling oil and water. 

All community[1] and non-transient non-community water systems[2] must comply with the PFAS MCLs beginning in 2027. Until now, all prior information from the EPA regarding PFAS was advisory. The prior advisory level from the EPA for PFAS was 70 parts per trillion (“ppt”). The new MCLs for the six PFAS are as follows:

• 4 ppt for PFOA
• 4 ppt for PFOS
• 10 ppt for PFNA
• 10 ppt for PFHxS
• 10 ppt for HFPO-DA
• 1 (unitless) hazard index of a mixture of two or more PFAS chemicals: PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA (commonly known as Gen X)

Often, state governments required larger drinking water systems to monitor the amount of PFAS in their drinking water. Although, they did not impose a regulation. Now, all community and non-transient non-community water systems must begin monitoring for PFAS by 2027. Systems must provide their monitoring data to the EPA. If a water system has a level at or over the MCL, they must implement infrastructure to reduce the PFAS below the limits.

Realities of PFAS Monitoring

One of the difficult realities of measuring for these MCLs is finding a lab with analytical capabilities to detect that level of PFAS in a sample, and at an affordable rate. Many labs do not currently have the analytical capabilities to detect 4 ppt or lower in a sample. Before a water system submits its sample to a particular lab, it should ensure the lab can detect 4 ppt or lower. The sample must show 3.99 ppt or lower to be in compliance with the MCL for PFOA and PFOS. PFOA and PFOS are the most common PFAS in drinking water. Typically, the smaller the detection limit required, the more expensive the test.

Funding is available from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the EPA’s Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities Grant Program to assist with making the impacted water systems compliant with this new regulation. There are also other federal programs available to assist with any additional costs. Another program, the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (“WIFIA”), provides low-cost, flexible funding to communities for water infrastructure projects. WIFIA funding is available year-round.

Although the EPA provided three years for systems to begin the process, the sooner a system understands their situation the better. Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. assists many municipal water systems regarding compliance with drinking water standards. Please contact our office if you have any questions regarding your water system.

[1] “Community Water System” means a public water system that has 15 or more service connections used by year-round residents, or that regularly serves 25 or more year-round residents. 40 CFR § 141.2.

[2] “Non-Transient Non-Community Water System” or “NTNC” means a public water system that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per year. 40 CFR § 141.2.

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.