The State of California wants to know when you sell or transfer water rights. As part of any land use transaction involving water rights, regulations require landowners to provide notice to the Water Resources Control Board (WRCB) when water rights transfer to new owners.
The WRCB will accept any change of ownership unless the change is challenged. If so, the WRCB will wait to update ownership listings until the dispute is settled outside of the agency.
Notification to WRCB should include information like the application number for the water right, name, and address of the new owner. The notice must also be signed by the previous owner. The process is easy. Forms are available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ewrims/ownership/. The forms may be sent electronically, by mail, or fax. Questions regarding the forms may be sent to: changerequest@waterboards.ca.gov.
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.
Top Ten Ways to Improve Federal Land Management
With the political race underway, one group has taken a hard look at land management objectives on federal lands. In response, this group prepared a list of the top ten ways to improve federal land management in an open letter to the United States Presidential Candidates. In summary, top ten items include:
Retain federal ownership of most federal lands, but with significant changes.
Enhance the National Park System by converting some of the existing National Monuments to Park status with approval of the applicable State.
Adopt and implement State sage grouse management plans, and withdraw BLM and USFS land use and forest planning as related to sage grouse.
Manage wild horses and burros to achieve “appropriate management levels” (AML) within 4 years with priority timing on sage grouse breeding, late-brood rearing, and winter habitat areas.
Repeal (or amend) the Antiquities Act of 1906, to negate the ability of the President to unilaterally establish National Monuments without the approval of Congress.
Release Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) within 4 years unless Congress approves to establish the same (in whole or in part) to Wilderness status.
Retain, but amend, the Equal Access to Justice Act, and similar fee-shifting statutes.
Amend the Endangered Species Act to more precisely defining the terms “species,” “endangered species,” and “threatened species.”
Amend the Administrative Procedure Act to provide litigants a meaningful opportunity for participation and for judicial review.
Consolidate administration of the public lands and national forest system lands into one federal land management agency.
The positions expressed in the letter are those of the individual signatory and do not intend to express the positions of the firm/business or its clients/customers to which the signatory is associated/employed.
New: Harney Valley Groundwater Area of Concern
Greater Harney County Groundwater Area of Concern
The Oregon Water Resources Commission’s (OWRC’s) rulemaking for the Greater Harney Valley Groundwater Area of Concern (Area of Concern) became effective on April 15, 2016. The new regulations limit pending and new applications for groundwater use in the Malheur Basin. Citing concern over lowering groundwater levels in the region, OWRC passed the new regulations to limit new water development until the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) can adequately study the basin’s groundwater. This regulation is a component of the Malheur Basin Program. The drafts, maps, and rules are available at: http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/Pages/law/Department_Rulemaking.aspx.
Over a year ago, OWRD stopped issuing new ground water permits within the Area of Concern. Until the most recent rulemaking, however, no rules were in place allowing OWRD to halt permit processing and issuance. Usually, OWRC will create by rule Critical Groundwater Areas, Groundwater Limited Areas, and Serious Water Management Problem Areas prior to OWRD ceasing to issue new permits.
OWRC can designate Critical Groundwater Areas for multiple reasons, including declining groundwater levels, substantial interference between wells, overdraft of groundwater, or water quality degradation. OWRD must indicate the boundaries of the area and review the designation at least every 10 years. The designation allows OWRD to, for example, close the area to any further appropriation, limit the total withdrawal from the aquifer, and refuse applications for new groundwater permits.
Groundwater Limited Areas limit future appropriations of water to specified uses, but do not restrict existing consumption of water within the area. Serious Water Management Problem Areas allow OWRD to collect usage data from current water use right holders, but not restrict water consumption. These tools are used to collect information and guide future development of water resources in Oregon.
Rather than designating a critical or limited groundwater area, or a serious water management problem area, OWRD addressed the Harney Valley Groundwater Area of Concern by amending the Malheur Basin Program. Basin programs are used by OWRC to guide water right permitting decisions and coordinate with other state agencies. Within basin plans, OWRC may classify the highest and best uses for particular basins and waterways for future uses, including proscribing types of uses available to future applicants. Oregon’s basin programs are listed in the Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 690, beginning at Division 500, and the Malheur Basin Program is located at Division 510, available at: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_600/oar_690/690_510.html.
The new regulations for the Greater Harney Valley Groundwater Area of Concern propose to both limit future uses and collect information before OWRD completes a full study of the aquifer, expected to be completed by 2020. The proposed rules received 22 comments, which can be viewed at: http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/misc/vault/vault.aspx?Type=WrdNotice¬ice_item_id=6640. In the meantime, 39 groundwater use applications are pending before OWRD, and these applications will not be approved, unless they meet conditions included in the new basin plan regulations. This is in direct opposition to the rule that applications must be processed based on the laws and regulations in effect at the time of filing, but OWRD is taking the position that groundwater is not available for the applications, rather than a regulatory change affected the outcome of the applications (this is not a new approach from OWRD).
The “area of concern” is, in effect, a moratorium on new groundwater development in the region. The new regulations create restrictions on new applications reminiscent of critical groundwater areas, but within the basin program scheme. The moratorium will put a halt to development in the region, at least while OWRD studies the groundwater in the area. Locals familiar with groundwater in the Malheur Basin are resentful of OWRD’s blanket moratorium when certain areas within the basin do not appear to show the same level of strain as others, and continue to produce great quantities of groundwater.
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.
California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) was passed in 2014. The SGMA requires local agencies to bear the burden of creating, implementing, and enforcing Groundwater Sustainability Plans (“GSP”) in certain groundwater basins to manage the aquifer in a “sustainable” manner. The California Department of Water Resources (“CDWR”) recently issued regulations that help clarify the requirements of the GSPs, but also include some information about how the law will impact local agencies and groundwater users in the State. However, the regulations fail to satisfy some fundamental questions raised by the SGMA.
The new regulations were issued on May 18, 2016 by CDWR provide some insights into how the agency plans to implement the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. A copy of the regulations may be found at: http://water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/Proposed_GSP_Regs_2016_05_10.pdf. Under the regulations, the agency set out the requirements for plan contents, including administrative information, a description of the basin, sustainable management criteria, a description of the monitoring network, and projects associated with the plans.
The administrative information section must include general information about the region, description of the local agency developing the plan, and the agency decision-making process with public engagement.
The basin setting section must thoroughly describe the basin’s hydro-geologic conditions and must create a “water budget” that describes all the surface and groundwater movement into and out of the basin. Under this section, the local agency must estimate the “sustainable yield” of the basin.
Sustainable Management Criteria have also been outlined by the regulations. These criteria require local agencies to set a sustainability goal that eliminates undesirable results of groundwater use within 20 years of the statutory deadline. CDWR will evaluate sustainability goals based on the achievement of minimum thresholds established by the local agency. The minimum thresholds expand on the statutory language for “undesirable results.” For example, a significant and unreasonable reduction in groundwater storage levels will be evaluated based on the locally defined “undesirable results,” supported by the “sustainable yield” of the basin. The local agency must also include a measuring system and “measurable objectives” that are revisited every five years.
The regulation also outlines the procedure that CDWR will use to evaluate plans, timelines for approval and reporting, and how local agencies can amend their plans. It also sets out the procedure for interagency agreements and addresses adjudications and alternatives to GSPs.
The real impact will come from the local agencies’ interpretation of the word “sustainable.” The new regulations use the term throughout, defining the quantity of water in the water budget available and defining allowable groundwater depletions. Traditionally, sustainable yield is considered the amount of water that can be withdrawn in balance with recharge. At first glance, the definition makes sense. The meaning, however, simplifies a more complex concept. When water is pumped from an aquifer, three results can occur: a reduction in stored water stored in the aquifer, capture of surface water (like rain or seepage from a river), or a reduction in discharge (like a spring or river baseflow), or any of these effects in combination depending on the specific aquifer. Ponce, Victor M., Sustainable Yield of Groundwater, (available at: http://ponce.sdsu.edu/groundwater_sustainable_yield.html). It remains to be seen how “unreasonable” and how “significant” the undesirable effects have to be in order to become unsustainable.
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.
Update: Klamath Basin Agreements in 2016
On April 6, 2016, amendments to the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the new Klamath Power and Facilities Agreement (KPFA) were signed at a ceremony at the mouth of the Klamath River on the Yurok Indian Reservation. These changes come in the wake of the Congress’s decision not to pass legislation for the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). Negotiations between the signatories of the new agreements in the Klamath Basin were kept secret, the results of their discussions can be seen in these new agreements, available at: https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/Pages/adj/index.aspx.
The amended KHSA’s purpose is to establish a process for removal of Iron Gate, Copco 1, Copco 2 and J.C. Boyle dams under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions relicensing procedures. The decision to remove the dams was made based on a cost-benefit analysis that was not released to the public. The amended agreement will also shield PacificCorp and its customers from liability for damages associated with dam removal. The amended agreement transfers the ownership of the dams to the Klamath River Renewal Corporation. The new corporation will conduct the dam removal, while PacificCorp will operate the dams until their decommissioning. The dams are expected to be removed in 2020. The U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Commerce, California and Oregon States, and PacificCorp were parties to the agreement.
The KPFA is an agreement designed to mitigate economic and regulatory issues facing users of water and land in the Klamath Basin. Oregon and California States, the Klamath Water Users Association, public interest groups (including American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, and Sustainable Northwest), the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the National Marine Fisheries Service were parties to the agreement. The KPFA stipulates that the signing parties must meet and confer when there is an unforeseen circumstance related to the fishery restoration and regulatory impacts on the local economy. It also obligates the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (“BOR”), upon transfer of the operation of Link River and Keno Dams, to operate the dams without adding any associated costs to water users for the maintenance of infrastructure. The BOR will operate those dams consistent with existing contracts for irrigation and flood control, and attempt to prevent salmon from entering irrigation canals and ditches. Funding for projects preventing salmon entry into irrigation infrastructure will come from a variety of sources, including irrigation districts, federal, state, and private parties. The agreement also requires the signing parties to support and defend the KHSA, refrain from making statements in opposition to the KHSA, and support the KHSA in administrative and judicial forums. Notably, representatives of the local landowners that will be affected were not included in negotiations, and are not signatories to the agreement.
In short, after many years of receiving a clear message from Congress that it was not going to fund the KBRA’s dam removal plan, the proponents are moving forward without Congress’s approval, or the approval of the local residents that will be most affected. Rather than retrofit the dams to allow fish passage and other updates, the negotiating parties are removing the dams. Along with the dams, the negotiating parties are doing away with inexpensive power, jobs, and water storage for increased reliability within the basin, in a proverbial “flushing the baby with the bathwater” situation. It remains to be seen how severe the impacts from dam removal will be on top of the other stresses that the Klamath Basin has suffered since the administrative phase of the Klamath Basin Adjudication was completed, and since the region has suffered from severe drought for several years.
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.
New Oregon Water Permit Condition to Begin Construction
The Oregon Water Code provides that construction of a water system must be completed within certain time limits from issuance of water use permits (5 years for non-municipal water use permits, and 20 years for municipal permits). ORS 537.230 (“…the holder of a water right permit shall prosecute the construction of any proposed irrigation or other work with reasonable diligence and complete the construction within a reasonable time, as fixed in the permit…”); ORS 537.630. The same provisions allow the Oregon Water Resources Department (“the Department”) to grant extensions of time for completion of construction.
The Oregon Water Code also provides that water use permits may be cancelled when a permittee fails to begin construction within permit deadlines. ORS 537.410(1) (“Whenever the owner of a permit to appropriate the public waters of Oregon fails to commence actual construction work within the time required by law, or having commenced construction work as required by law, fails or neglects to prosecute the construction work with reasonable diligence, or fails to complete the construction work within the time required by law, or as fixed in the permit, or within such further time as may be allowed under ORS 537.230, or having completed construction work, fails or neglects to apply the water to beneficial use within the time fixed in the permit, the Water Resources Commission may cancel the permit on the records in the Water Resources Department as provided in ORS 537.410 to 537.450.”)
In determining whether to grant an extension of time, the Department considers: 1) the cost of the appropriation and application of water to a beneficial purpose, 2) the good faith of the appropriator, 3) the market for water or power to be supplied, 4) the present demand for the water or power to be supplied, and 5) the income or use that may be required to provide fair and reasonable returns upon the investment. ORS 537.230(3); ORS 539.010(5); see also OAR Chapter 690 Division 315. The Department’s general practice has been to liberally grant extensions of time if the permittee is able to show a financial investment to begin construction and/or water use under the permit and a reasonable explanation for the delay. Permit extension of time applications are available on the Department’s website at: http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/PUBS/docs/forms/App_Ext_WR_perm.docx.
Recently, the Department has added the following condition to new permits: “The deadline to begin construction may not be extended.” Although the new permit condition does not mark a departure from the Oregon Water Code’s provisions, it does mark increased seriousness from the Department about what is necessary to obtain an extension of time to develop a new water use right. Permittees should be sensitive to the change in climate regarding beginning construction and applying water to beneficial use.
Now, more than ever, it will be important to begin construction within the 5-year deadline in order to avoid permit cancellation. “Actual construction” means “physical work performed towards completion of the water system, which demonstrates both the present good faith of the water right permit holder and the water right permit holder’s intention to complete the project with reasonable diligence.” OAR 690-315-0020(3)(d)(A). This does not include planning, securing financing, entering into contracts, surveying, or purchasing (but not installing) equipment. OAR 690-315-0020(3)(d)(B).
Make sure to stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Blog for more news that may affect you!
U.S. Supreme Court Rules CWA Jurisdiction Reviewable in Federal Court
The Clean Water Act is an issue of gathering significance with the Environmental Protection Agency and adoption of a newly defined “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”), wherein civil and criminal penalties can attach if pollutant is discharged into jurisdictional waters. Thus, whether water is defined as “jurisdictional” becomes an important significance. On May 31, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., et al., regarding Clean Water Act (“CWA”) application and the regulatory jurisdiction of the United States over water resources.
In the lawsuit, three peat mining companies sought a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to discharge certain material into a wetland. The companies sought a “jurisdictional determination” from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that the property was jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Disagreeing with the determination, the companies sought review of the determination under the Administrative Procedure Act, appealing the determination to Federal District Court. The Federal District Court dismissed the matter, holding that a jurisdictional determination is not a “final agency action” allowing the right of an appeal to the Court.
Upon review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court overturned the lower court, and found that a jurisdictional determination is in fact a final agency action and judicially reviewable. While this ruling does not affect the current stay of the newly adopted rule governing the definition of WOTUS, it does shed light on procedure and available remedies should water be found to be jurisdictional, where a permit application disagrees.
This decision is overall good news for those seeking to comply under the Clean Water Act, and where the EPA and Corps may overstep their bounds in finding certain water to be jurisdictional. Any determination of jurisdiction is reviewable in Federal Court, where an individual can properly assert and provide evidence that certain water is in fact not jurisdictional. In any event, this decision sparks the beginning of likely a long line of cases pending around the country relating to the CWA’s jurisdictional reach.
101 on Forfeiture vs. Abandonment Under Prior Appropriation Doctrine
Forfeiture
We’ve all heard “Use it or Lose it” referring to the Prior Appropriation System. The use it or lose it concept is the term we use for legal forfeiture which will apply to your water rights of use depending on your jurisdiction and type of water right. Generally, this concept requires beneficial use of water appropriated under state law over a specific time interval. In some states (like Nevada and Oregon), “use it or lose” is statutorily controlled, the law describes when a water user must exercise their water right of use. In Oregon both groundwater and surface water certificates require water use once for every five consecutive year time frame. ORS 540.610. In Nevada, the statute provides that only groundwater certificated uses are subject to forfeiture for non-use if not used at least once every five years. NRS 534.090. Thus, if you last used your certificated water right of use in 2011, you best put whatever water is available for appropriation under your certificate in place for 2016! Make sure to use it so you are not at risk of losing it!
Abandonment
Use it or lose it as defined by the water code should not be confused with abandonment, a court made doctrine that may be more broadly applied. Abandonment will cause cancellation of a water use by intention not to use. Intention can be established by expression as in a written document or by a physical act. The physical act of abandonment can include placing a permanent structure over or on top of water righted lands. If you plan to build the next industrial sized plant, packing shed, scale house, onion storage, fill in your ditch, or take out your diversion structures, etc., you should file that water use transfer or change application prior to any construction!
While this gives you the very “basic” overview of these two legal concepts, Schroeder Law Offices can provide a more detailed explanation
World Environment Day: Sunday, June 5th
Water resource users are some of the most environmental aware stewards since they must count every precious drop of water necessary to feed the world and provide safe drinking water. In the United States, we celebrate Earth Day: We have a bike-to-work week, we have recycling and environmental preservation programs in our communities, the list goes on. World Environment Day is the United Nations’ all-encompassing campaign that promotes these types of environmentally conscious activities and events and serves as a global platform for public outreach. The UN considers World Environment Day (“WED”) an important holiday for encouraging worldwide awareness and action for the protection of our environment. Also considered “The People’s Day,” the UN encourages this to be “a day for doing something to take care of the Earth or to become an agent of change. That ‘something’ can be focused locally, nationally or globally; it can be a solo action or involve a crowd – everyone is free to choose.” Each year, the UN organizes WED to revolve around a particularly pressing issue, this year they’re highlighting illegal wildlife trade with a themed slogan: “Go Wild for Life.” Activities are encouraged globally; in 2015, WED saw a total of 2,861 registered activities with 1.26 million people participating worldwide. Participants can visit the WED online site to register their environmental activities to be shared worldwide on a community map, with hopes of inspiring others with ideas or notable contributions. For those who wish to participate in the World Environment Day celebration, the UN offers this toolkit for a successful, positive route to taking action and encourages participants to share their activities. While Schroeder Law Office’s work in water resources is a bit removed from the 2016 theme “Go Wild for Life” we can say that we “Go Wild for Water.” We will celebrate this year’s World Environment Day by continuing to support our clients in smart and efficient beneficial use of our water resources.
The End of the Prior Appropriation Doctrine?
The debate continues on the prior appropriation system. During the 2016 Family Farm Alliance Annual Conference, the Alliance’s 2015 report on the prior appropriation doctrine raised some debate. This debate, now focusing on Nevada’s prior appropriation system, was again raised in equal vigor during the 2016 Nevada Water Resources Association annual conference. While many argue the system fundamentally works, some commenters took the stance that the prior appropriation doctrine was flawed and should be reconsidered.
One alternative suggestion presented during these discussions was to adopt the Australian Model which changes a water right to a water share, and strives to entitle these water license holders to a specific share in the available water and to take water at specific times, rates or extraction points. However a true understanding of prior appropriation provides for water use under these circumstances, with the main difference being, in a short water year, the difference class of shareholders receive different allocations. So instead of a month, day and year priority to govern who receives their water first, the Australian Model groups all users into classes of shares with perhaps 3-5 classes all together depending on the stream system. What we did not hear about was how the Australian system handles conjunctive management calls within these class-share systems.
We suspect this debate will continue throughout the western United States as climate change and the drought continue.
Co-authored by Therese A. Ure
Executive Order Makes California Water Conservation Permanent
On May 9, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed an executive order making certain water conservation measures permanent. The measure is meant to build on temporary emergency water restriction in place since last year. Brown’s office reports that “between June 2015 and March 2016, Californians reduced water use by 23.9 percent compared with the same months in 2013 – saving enough water to provide 6.5 million Californians with water for one year.”
The executive order primarily implements long term planning solutions for local drought and directs the California State Water Resources Control Board to develop further emergency provisions should the drought continue. This new action is summarized in the Governor’s plan to “Make Conservation a California Way of Life.”
More specifically, the plan requires additional monthly reporting by urban water suppliers, requiring information on use, conservation, and enforcement. The provisions further claim to eliminate water waste, prohibiting hosing off sidewalks, driveways, at home washing of autos using hoses not equipped with nozzles, and watering lawns in manner that causes runoff. The Water Board will also work to minimize system leaks responsible for wasting more than 700,000 acre-feet of water per year. While already strictly regulated, agriculture use is also heavily considered, updating the requirements for Agricultural Management Plans allowing irrigation districts to quantify customers’ use and appropriately plan for shortages.
While water restrictions and regulations are becoming more permanent, Californians will continue to face heavier scrutiny. It is ultimately the user who will face the increased burden, however, the hope is that the systems themselves will promote efficiency, providing a better use of water across all systems and types of use.
Nevada is taking a close look at water rights of use, thus now is the time to make sure your use rights are in good standing. With a shuffling of basin engineers within the Nevada Division of Water Resources, water rights are being reviewed to determine compliance!
Are your rights of use in your name? If not, it is time to bring the ownership current as required under Nevada Law!
If you have a permitted right, are you diligently developing your use to bring it towards certification?
If you are not using your groundwater, are you at risk for forfeiture?
Do you have a metering requirement? if yes, is your meter installed and are you recording monthly measurement readings?
All of these items and more are under scrutiny by the State Engineer’s office. In the last few months we have seen a number of forfeiture letters go out to unsuspecting water users, don’t let this be you! Do not wait to review your water use rights to ensure they are in compliance!
Sage Grouse Land Use Plans and Law Suits
On September 18, 2015, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) and United States Forest Service (“USFS”) issued Records of Decision (“RODs”) related to land management in support of sage grouse populations on lands managed by the agencies. The RODs put land use plans in place in lieu of listing sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). The land use plans are extremely long and complicated, and are summarized in the article Sage Grouse Conservation without an Endangered Species Act Listing: Digging into the National Greater Sage Grouse Planning Strategy Records of Decision, available at: http://www.water-law.com/water-rights-articles/sage-grouse-conservation/.
Law suits involving sage grouse have not halted in the shadow of these new, comprehensive land use plans. On March 29, 2016, Western Watersheds Project (“WWP”) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against the BLM for approving fences within the Argenta Allotment in Nevada, claiming the approval violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and that alternatives to fencing existed that BLM should have considered. WWP also alleges that the BLM sage grouse use plan required BLM to consider certain alternatives. To view a copy of WWP’s complaint, visit: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1T2j7JW1SeoWV9FbVh2SW1wdEU/view. WWP’s law suit comes on top of other attacks against grazing in the Argenta Allotment that are currently being litigated.
Be sure to stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog for more news that could affect you!
Sage Grouse Workshop
BLM’s Sage Grouse Plan Collaboration-Implementation is underway.
As part of the BLM’s effort to ensure collaboration and engagement during implementation of the sage grouse plans, the BLM is sending out invitations to stakeholders to begin the dialogue.
These invitation only meetings will occur on:
April 22nd in Salt Lake City, UT
April 26th in Boise, ID
April 27th in Reno, NV
April 28th in Redmond, OR
You are requested to RSVP at the link below to reserve your spot by April 15, 2016, so that we can set up the workshop for the appropriate number of participants:
While space is limited for these invite-only dialogues, BLM plans to conduct additional public meetings later this spring and summer. Once these public meetings are scheduled, information will be available on: http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/wildlife_and_fisheries/greater_sage-grouse.html. If you are interested in receiving an invitation to these meetings, please contact your state BLM office.
Renewable Energy Demand Grows; Hydro Power Faces Challenges, Opportunities
In the Northwest, a substantial percentage of our power comes from hydroelectric projects. California’s new legislation requires utilities to provide electricity from 50% renewables by 2030, and Oregon’s new legislation requires the same by 2040. The hydro power industry is viewing these renewable standards as creating continuing demand for hydro power, but several trends are creating serious hurdles for the hydro power industry.
More large projects are going through FERC re-licensing than those large projects that would seek first-time licenses. The result is that older projects are becoming subject to new instream flow and fish passage requirements. The older projects going through re-licensing are usually required to make facility upgrades, and regulate the projects to send more water downstream.
Additionally, climate change means that water patterns are also changing. Scientists predict that more precipitation will fall during the winter, with less flows from snow pack runoff and precipitation in the spring and summer. Predicted changes will create a large burden on facilities that provide flood control, possibly exceeding the amounts of water the facilities were designed to withstand. Further, flows released to meet instream flow requirements in the spring could mean that water is not available for power production and water users later in the season when there is a larger demand.
Moreover, new in-stream storage projects often meet substantial opposition from environmental groups. Therefore, some innovative hydroelectric developers are constructing out-of-stream projects. For example, the Snohomish Public Utility District in Washington is reviewing an opportunity to construct the Sunset Fish Passage and Energy Project, http://www.snopud.com/?p=1956. An underwater intake structure would divert water from the South Fork Skykomish River, and would flow one-half mile through an underground tunnel to the PUD powerhouse, thereafter emptying back into the river. The PUD would also update the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife’s trap-and-haul facility as part of the project. In this way, the PUD proposes an innovative way to create hydro power while satisfying those who are typically opposed to new projects.
Schroeder Law Offices is assisting a client to develop a closed-loop hydro power project using existing agricultural groundwater use rights. It is the first of its kind in Oregon, and will not have undesired effects on surface water streams or fish passage. These types of innovative hydro power designs will need to be used more and more if hydro power is to keep a foothold in renewable energy portfolios in the West.
Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices, PC’s Water Law Blog for water news that could affect you!
2016 Irrigation Season
Spring is approaching on the West Coast and we all know what this means: watering season! Time to check your sprinkler systems for leaks, read and record meters, and make sure your system is ready for spring irrigation.
Though forecasts were set for an “El Niño” winter on the West Coast, projections from the March Nevada Water Supply Outlook Report, issued yearly by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, suggest that the 2016 water year is not yet the end of Nevada’s drought. Currently, (as of March 1, 2016) the Bridgeport Reservoir on the East Walker River is at 24.4 percent full, while the Topaz Reservoir on the West Walker River is at about 28.6 percent full. Despite the two reservoirs having about twice as much water as they did at this time last year, streamflow numbers as of April 1 will calculate the upcoming curtailment order on groundwater rights issued by the Nevada State Engineer’s Office.
After several years of drought, the influx of melting snow pack will provide some relief for Nevada residents, but mindfulness is going to be key. In Pershing County, the newly improved Rye Patch Reservoir is set to provide water to Lovelock Valley farmers but the county’s water conservation district manager recommends the 2016 irrigation season be postponed. After consecutive years of drought, the dry ground in irrigation ditches and canals will absorb much of the water initially released from the reservoir, until at least another 10-12,000 acre-feet of water are available for use.
Ranchers in Northern Nevada are facing designations proposed by state water officials last week that order groundwater well metering, meaning more monitoring, regulation, and study of the Humboldt River Basin’s limited resources. As orders such as these become more common, residents can do their part by monitoring individual irrigation systems and meters.
Announcing Sarah Liljefelt as Junior Partner!
Schroeder Law Offices is proud to announce Portland’s Managing Attorney, Sarah Liljefelt, has been promoted to Junior Partner. Sarah has been with the firm since 2009 as a law clerk, and joined the firm full time after receiving her Juris Doctorate and Certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law from Northwestern School of Law of Lewis and Clark College in 2010.
Sarah’s practice focuses in the areas of water rights, real property law, and litigation, licensed in both Oregon and California. As a member of the Oregon State Bar Environmental and Natural Resources Law Executive Committee, Sarah has published extensively on natural resources law and related topics.
In addition to her focused practice areas, Sarah is active in the Portland community. She is currently a Vice President of Oregon Cattle Women, and competes on the Oregon Women Lawyer’s “Dragonflies” dragon boat team.
Sarah was born and raised in California during a time of serious drought and is passionate about the importance of water resources for people, animals, and the production of food in the face of supply variations.
Nevada Drought Forum Releases Recommendations Report
Upon facing the fourth year of consecutive drought, the Nevada Drought Forum formed in April 2015 by Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval to assist with water resource challenges in the State of Nevada. The Forum was comprised of members representing various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies in charge of managing water resources in the State. In September 2015, a Drought Summit was held at the Nevada Legislature, where those involved discussed many of the drought problems Nevada is facing, and numerous presentations were offered on these issues. At the conclusion of the Forum activities, and in December 2015, the Governor was presented with a Recommendations Report summarizing the conclusions made by the Form, and proposed future action.
The Drought Forum recommendations come in seven (7) categories including: 1) Water Conservation, 2) Nevada Water Law, 3) Monitoring and Research Data, 4) Financial and Technical Assistance, 5) Supply Augmentation and Long-Range Planning, 6) Information Sharing and Outreach, and 7) Drought Declarations/Emergency Actions. Each category offers specific suggested action items for the Governor’s consideration. Strategies include requiring meters on all groundwater connections, tiered rate structures, updates to Nevada water law, judicial education on water issues, and refinement to drought criteria, among others.
At this stage, no specific action is taking place on the issues presented; however, the conversation is started on where Nevada will head in response to ongoing drought conditions. While real action can sometimes take years to implement, the Recommendations come as a positive sign that Governor Sandoval is interested in suggested strategies advocated by water professionals around the state. There remains time for those interested in becoming involved to voice their concerns and positions with the Governor in upcoming events dedicated to this ongoing discussion.
California’s New Water Measuring, Recording & Reporting Law
California Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 88 into law on June 24, 2015. Part of that Bill amended the California Water Code to require that all persons who divert 10 acre-feet or more of water per year after January 1, 2016 must install a water measuring device to measure the rate of diversion (including diversion into and out of storage). Water users must report installation to the Water Board, as well as provide evidence that the measuring device is functioning properly at five-year intervals. Water users must maintain records of diversion at time intervals of one hour or less (in some cases) and total amounts of water diverted.
Annual diversion reports must be submitted to the Water Board, and the law states: “Compliance with the applicable requirements of this section is a condition of every registration, permit, or license.” The new law imposes civil fines in an amount not to exceed $500 per violation, per day, which may be enforced civilly through the superior court, or administratively by the Water Board. The Water Board will provide forms for reporting.
On January 19, 2016, the Water Board adopted emergency regulations to implement the new water measuring law. Those regulations were sent to the Office of Administrative Law for approval. Of note, the proposed regulations give the Deputy Director of the Division of Water Rights the authority to require monthly, daily, or more frequent reporting in times when there are insufficient flows to support all diversions. Additionally, the regulations propose a phased approach that takes into account the amount of water diverted, with larger diverters needing to comply with more stringent requirements than smaller diverters.
The recent drought spurred California law makers to enact this law that will mark a drastic change in the way water users operate. The Water Board reports that this new measurement, recordkeeping, and reporting law will apply to approximately 12,000 water users in California. The Water Board hopes that the new law and regulations will improve water use regulation and planning. Industry groups, including the California Cattlemen’s Association, oppose the regulations.
In Oregon, the Water Resources Department has phased in water use measuring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements into new water use permits that are issued. California’s new law and regulations impose a new condition on existing water use rights, raising red flags about regulatory takings.
Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Blog for more news that may affect you!
Forest Service Changes It’s Tune on Transfer of Ski Area Water Rights
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.
With the political race underway, one group has taken a hard look at land management objectives on federal lands. In response, this group prepared a list of the top ten ways to improve federal land management in an open letter to the United States Presidential Candidates. In summary, top ten items include:
