Improved technology and surveying techniques may lead to the discovery that your water rights are located where believed or are actually authorized on incorrect property. If you are a holder of a water right which incorrectly includes a portion of authorized use appurtenant to land owned by another party (such as a neighbor) or another inconvenient place, the clarification process outlined below may be of assistance to you.

Clarification of a water right is authorized by ORS 540.560 and administrative rule OAR 690-380-9000. These provisions of law provide that the Director of the Oregon Water Resources Department (“Department”) may issue an order clarifying and defining the description of land to which a water right is appurtenant when it is required for the management, delivery or transfer of a water right. The sole purpose of the clarification process is to better define the location to which a water right is appurtenant. No other changes – i.e. rate of use, amount of use, type of use – may be changed by the clarification process.

To clarify your water rights, you may “petition” the Director for an order to clarify the location of your rights by letter. The letter should include:

1. Relevant and historic information sufficient to establish that the “clarified” location is the same location where water use has always occurred;

2. An explanation of why the present location description is inadequate or deficient;

3. A description of the “clarified” location including an explanation of the difference between the current location and the “clarified” location. This description may be supported by a map.

If the Department determines that clarification is required, an order is issued clarifying the water right. The Department must serve the order on the legal owner and occupant of the land to which the water is appurtenant as described in the certificate. The legal owner or occupant of the land may request a hearing to object to the clarification within 30 days of service of the order. If no request for a hearing is made, the order issued by the Department shall become final and become an addendum to the certificate.

If you are interested in obtaining or discussing additional information regarding the clarification process, please contact Attorney Cortney Duke at c.duke@water-law.com or our office at (503) 281-4100.

It is practically impossible to avoid a new story, article or observations about the economy these days. Commentary on the economy commonly concerns interest rates, the stock market, and the latest moves by the Fed. In the article “Is water the new gold?” author Anthony Mirthaydan addresses the interplay of the demand for clean fresh water for domestic, agricultural, industrial and other uses with the local, regional and world economies. As pointed out by Mr. Mirthaydan, as the demand for water increases so too does the stakes to control water sources. Because all signs point to continued escalated demands for water, now is the time to ensure your water rights and resources are secure now and for the future.

http://money.msn.com/exchange-traded-fund/is-water-the-new-gold-mirhaydari.aspx?GT1=33002

OWRD’s Reimbursement Authority Program provides water users with an opportunity to expedite final action on extension and transfer applications. Through the program, the water user enters an agreement to pay the costs necessary for OWRD to engage outside contractors to conduct OWRD’s review of the application. The benefit is clear. Rather than sitting in a pile indefinitely, the application is reviewed.

If you’re a municipally, however, you shouldn’t plan on utilizing the program for your water permit extension applications. Under ORS 537.230, OWRD is required to consult with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (“ODFW”) prior to approving a municipal extension application that will affect waterways holding sensitive, endangered or threatened fish. Unfortunately, the reimbursement authority program does not extend to the ODFW, which has been reviewing a backlog of municipal extension applications in the Willamette Valley since 2006. OWRD reports that municipal and quasi-municipal Rogue River basin extensions will follow next. Reimbursement authority will not push your application to the top of ODFW’s pile.

The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) changed its procedure for accepting alternative (small) reservoir applications based on the judicial decision Deborah Noble and David Hillison v. Oregon Water Resources Department (Hillison). Clackamas County Circuit Court, CV-10-01-0159, General Judgment entered January 25, 2011.

The Hillison court determined that ORS 537.409, which governs the permitting process for alternative reservoirs required, as a prerequisite, that applicants show that the reservoir meets the following criteria:

1. Has a storage capacity of less than 9.2 acre-feet or a dam or impoundment structure less than 10 feet in height;
2. Does not injure any existing water right;
3. Does not pose a significant detrimental impact to existing fishery resources as determined on the basis of information submitted by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife; and
4. Is not prohibited under ORS 390.835.

The “old” procedure required applicants to submit an application that requested information about the applicant, the location and source of the water to be impounded, the intended use of the water, property ownership, environmental impacts and land uses. The application did not require applicants to submit information relevant to criteria 2 through 4 above. Instead, once the application was submitted, OWRD would consult with the local watermaster, the Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to obtain the necessary information.

The Hillison case came about after OWRD approved the application of Robert Lytle based on the “old” procedure. Deborah Noble and David Hillison brought suit in state court to challenge OWRD’s approval. The Hillison court ruled that OWRD’s “old” procedure for accepting applications was contrary to the enabling legislation, and thus OWRD could not issue permits on that basis any longer.

As a result of the Hillison decision, OWRD’s permitting of alternative reservoir applications was stalled for about 6 months, until late July, 2011. In order to get permitting moving again, OWRD has implemented a new permitting process. Now an applicant must set up meetings with their local planning department, their local watermaster, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to sign off on their proposed reservoir project prior to submitting the application to OWRD.

The main consequence is that a heavier burden is placed on alternative reservoir applicants to do the “leg work” prior to submitting an application. The days of a relatively easy process for applicants to obtain alternative reservoir permit are at an end. Finally, more work may be created for attorneys becasue each agency decision on the application will likely result in a final order that may be contested and reviewable.

For a more complete summary of the Hillison case, visit the Oregon State Bar’s Environmental and Natural Resources Section’s E-Outlook update at: http://osbenviro.homestead.com/Newsletters/11_EOutlook_Issue6_WaterRights.pdf. The website provides a summary of the case drafted by Sarah Liljefelt, Associate Attorney at Schroeder Law Offices, P.C.

Schroeder Law Offices routinely assists clients with water right permitting. Be sure to stay tuned to the Water Law Blog for current information about your water!

The Oregon Public Meetings laws sets a policy that Oregon government business be conducted in the open and that the public be informed of deliberations, decisions and information underlying those decisions. For those reasons, Oregon Revised Statute (“ORS”) 192.630 provides: “All meetings of the governing body of a public body shall be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided…” A “meeting” is the convening of a public body at which a quorum is present to make a decision or deliberate toward a decision. ORS 192.610. “Deliberate” is not defined by statute, but is ordinarily understood to mean discussion and consideration.

In Lane County, Oregon the County’s Budget Committee proposes an initial annual budget. The Committee is made up of the five County Commissioners, and five County citizens who are appointed by the Commissioners. The Committee adopts a budget and recommends it to the Board, which then makes adjustments and adopts a budget with a vote of at least three Commissioners. The meetings to determine the budget are considered public meetings and therefore must comply with the Oregon Public Meetings laws.

A suit was brought by residents of Lane County in February of 2010, alleging that the Lane County Board of Commissioners, and certain individual Board members, had violated the Public Meetings laws when amending the 2009 budget to re-allocate funds from prisons to pay for personal assistants for the Commissioners. See Lane County Circuit Court Case No. 16-10-02760. On January 18, 2011, the Lane County Circuit Court entered a judgment agreeing with the plaintiffs.

The Court found that the Commissioners had met outside of public meetings on numerous occasions to discuss the budget and come to decisions regarding the budget. The Court also found that the public meeting which was held to amend the budget was a sham, and that a plan was carried out by the Commissioners to execute their personal agendas with as little public input and interference as possible. Interestingly, the Court held that electronic communications, such as emails, can be the basis for deliberation within the confines of the Public Meetings laws, and that a series of in-person discussions, each discussion between less than a quorum of officials, could constitute a “meeting” if a quorum participated in the series of meetings.

The Lane County Circuit Court additionally found that Commissioners Hardy and Sorenson committed willful misconduct and were therefore personally liable for the plaintiffs’ attorney fees and court costs. The full decision may be found at: http://media.kval.com/documents/Dumdi-Handy.Decision.2011.01-18.pdf.

Oregon’s public meetings policy is essential for government transparency and public involvement. Many water decisions are made by public bodies, and it is incredibly important that those decisions be made in public meetings that are meaningful and exposed. The Lane County Circuit Court came down hard on the Lane County Board of Commissioners, showing just how important the Public Meetings laws are, and that the Court will not tolerate attempts to circumvent those laws.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog for news which may affect you!

On May 2, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Montana v. Wyoming (No. 137, Orig.; 2011 WL 1631038). Although the case had to do with an interstate water compact between those states, the court decided the case on general western water law principles.

Of particular interest, the Court determined that junior appropriators have no claim to customary return flows by senior users under the “no injury” principle in relation to the efficiency of water-application practices. The Court held that the no injury rule only protected junior appropriators from changes in return flows due to a change in the senior’s place of appropriation, place of use, and purpose for use. Thus, senior users may raise the efficiency of their water-application practices, thus reducing the amount of return flow, and junior users cannot complain.

The Court found support for this ruling in the rule of recapture, which allows appropriators to collect and reuse water so long as it remains on the appropriator’s property. The Court determined that if an appropriator can capture and reuse his return flows, then a junior user should not be permitted to complain about reduced return flows due to increases in efficiency. Montana and Wyoming have adopted the rule of recapture, as well as Oregon. Cleaver v. Judd, 238 Or. 266, 270-72 (1964); Jones v. Warmsprings Irr. Dist., 162 Or. 186, 196 (1939); Wood v. Woodcock, 276 Or. 49, 59 (1976).

For a more complete summary of Montana v. Wyoming, visit the Oregon State Bar’s Environmental and Natural Resources Section’s E-Outlook update at: http://osbenviro.homestead.com/Newsletters/11_EOutlook_Issue5_MTvWY_Water_Rts.pdf. The website provides a summary drafted by Sarah R. Liljefelt, Associate Attorney with Schroeder Law Offices, P.C.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’s Water Law Blog for more information about the latest water news which may affect you!

Generally, discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States require permitting from either the EPA or the State’s authorized permitting process under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). However, in 2006 the EPA issued a Final Rule which concluded that pesticides applied in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) were exempt from the CWA’s permitting requirements.

This exemption was short-lived, however, as in 2009 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined, in the case of National Cotton Council of America, et al. v. US EPA, that the EPA’s exemption ran afoul of the CWA’s statutory requirements. The court held that an application of pesticides or other biological materials to surface waters could come within the CWA’s mandates, and thus the court vacated the rule. The review and vacation of the EPA’s final rule applies to all federal circuits, except the Eleventh Circuit, because cases in each of those federal circuits were consolidated for review.

The court set a deadline of April 9, 2011 to give the industry time to obtain the necessary permits. However, on March 30, 2011 the deadline was extended until October 31, 2011, which will mark the end date of the irrigation season. Therefore, compliance will not be necessary until next year’s irrigation season.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) has been working to develop pesticide general permits in order to comply with the Sixth Circuit’s ruling. The public comment period for the Pesticide General Permit (2300A) closed on March 7, 2011. The public comment period for the Irrigation District General Permit (2300J) will close at 5 pm on April 15, 2011. More information can be found on the DEQ’s website at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqpermit/pesticides.htm.

Make sure to stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices, P.C.’s Water Law Blog for the latest water news which could affect you!

In response to a recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for Idaho, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) will be making the names and addresses of grazing permit holders and lessees available to the public via a publicly accessible website.  Personal phone numbers and financial information will not be included.  This change is derived from an attempt to balance two Federal laws including The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1966 and The Privacy Act of 1974.

In the December 29, 2010 release published by BLM in the Federal Register, the statement regarding this change was addressed in a System of Records Notice (“Notice”). A System of Records Notice provides interested parties forty (40) days to comment on the proposed change.  If you wish to provide comments to BLM, they must be submitted by February 7, 2011 to the BLM Privacy Office at 1849 C Street N.W., Room 725 LS, Washington D.C. 20240 or by email to privacy@blm.gov.  The change will take affect as outlined above unless submitted comments require a contrary determination.  It is important to note that all comments submitted, along with personal identifying information (including name, address, email, etc…), may be made available to the public at any time.

Public Land Council (“PLC”) has suggested that people affected by this notice should consider obtaining a P.O. Box to provide to their local BLM office to prevent the release of their physical address to the public.  Interested parties have up to sixty (60) days from the date the BLM Notice was published to provide an alternate address to the their local BLM office.  Upon such a change, all official mail from BLM will be forwarded to the updated address.

A copy of the Notice is available for review at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/browse.html.  For additional information from BLM, you may contact Robert Roudabush, Division Chief, Rangeland Resources, Bureau of Land Management by phone at (202) 912-7222 or by email at Rob-Roudabush@blm.gov.

If you would like further information or assistance from our office in preparing comments for BLM’s review, please contact us at (503) 281-4100.

On January 18, 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama signed an executive order titled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The Wall Street Journal printed the President’s address concerning the executive order in an article entitled “Toward a 21^st Century Regulatory System.”

The executive order requires federal agencies to ensure that regulations protecting health, safety and the environment also promote economic growth. The order directs a government-wide review of regulations already on the books in order to seek out and abolish outdated regulations that hinder job creation and economic competition. President Barack Obama expressed his recognition of the delicate balance between protection and economic growth, and his realization that regulations often strike the wrong balance. Therefore, he has made it the policy of his administration to strive for the same ends (the protection of health, safety and the environment), by way of less intrusive means.

What is the anticipated result of the executive order? It is difficult to predict at this point. At the very least, this modernizing effort is a step in the right direction. As natural resource users know, the regulations in this area of the law are seemingly endless. Many regulations do not provide for adequate protection of the environment, let alone make any kind of logical sense, and yet they place giant and sometime insurmountable burdens on those attempting to place those resources to productive use. If the executive order plays a part in reducing roadblocks to growth while protecting health, safety and the environment in a more cost effective way, then it will have made great progress in improving the U.S. regulatory system.

A complete version of the Wall Street Journal article is available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703396604576088272112103698.html.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices, P.C.’s Water Law Blog for more information about the latest news which may affect you!

Since 1989, the 9^th Circuit has held that no party may intervene on the side of the federal government when suits are brought which allege that the federal government did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). Often, environmental groups bring these suits, but those using the public lands or public resources do not have the ability to intervene on the side of the government in order to protect their interests. On Friday, January 14, 2011, the 9^th Circuit unanimously, in The Wilderness Society v. United States Forest Service, reversed the “none but the federal defendant rule,” thus allowing those with an interest in the outcome of the litigation to intervene to protect their rights.

Intervention in federal suits is of two types: 1) intervention as of right, and 2) permissive intervention. In most cases, intervention as of right is freely given so long as the intervenor satisfies a four-part test:

1.      The motion to intervene is timely;

2.      The applicant claims a “significantly protectable” interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the litigation;

3.      The applicant is situated so that disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the ability to protect that interest; and

4.      The applicant’s interest is inadequately represented by the parties to the action.

Permissive intervention is within the discretion of the court.

For over twenty years, the 9^th Circuit enforced a bright-line rule that parties could not intervene on the side of the federal government in NEPA violation cases. The rationale for the rule was that such parties could not have a “protectable interest” in the litigation because NEPA is a procedural statute which only binds the federal government. As the 9^th Circuit has recognized in The Wilderness Society v. United States Forest Service, not only is the reasoning misguided – private parties may have “significantly protectable” interests in the underlying property or transaction, which should be decided on a case-by-case basis – but the policy behind the rule runs afoul of the intervention as of right statute, and arbitrarily treats NEPA cases different than other intervention cases.

The Wilderness Society v. United States Forest Service reinforces the fundamental policies behind intervention as of right: that practical and equitable considerations should be followed; the intervention rule should be broadly construed in favor of intervenors; a liberal intervention policy serves efficient resolution of the issues and broadened access to the courts; and the “interest” test serves to dispose of lawsuits by involving as many concerned persons as possible. Moving forward, intervenor applicants with interests protected under “some law,” who may suffer “practical impairment” of those interests as a result of the litigation, will have the chance to intervene in NEPA cases. This is a fundamental change from previous policy, and one which will grant property owners and natural resource users a voice in disputes which directly affect their rights and interests.

A full copy of The Wilderness Society v. United States Forest Service may be found at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1552499.html.

Make sure you stay tuned to the Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. “Water Law Blog” for more updates about laws that may affect you!

On December 16, 2010, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Ricci, affirming the district court’s order denying judicial review of the State Engineer’s decision to grant Nevada Land and Resource Company, LLC’s (NLRC) change application for water rights in Washoe County’s Dodge Flat Hydrologic Basin.

NLRC originally obtained permits to appropriate Dodge Flat groundwater for temporary use in a mining and milling project in 1980. Twenty years later, NLRC applied to change the use from temporary to permanent and from mining and milling to industrial power purposes.

The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians (“the Tribe”) opposed the change application on the grounds that (1) Dodge Flat has no unappropriated groundwater, (2) groundwater pumping would interfere with existing rights to Truckee River surface water based on the hydrological connection between the Truckee River and Dodge Flat Basin, and (3) pumping from Dodge Flat Basin threatens to prove detrimental to the public interest by reducing Truckee River water quality and threatening the cui-ui fish and Lahontan cutthroat trout habitats.

On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court found that there was substantial evidence to support the State Engineer’s conclusions that (1) there is 1,428 afa of unappropriated water available for permanent use in Dodge Flat Basin, (2) the change applications will not affect existing water rights, and (3) that the change application does not threaten to prove detrimental to the public interest.

Specifically, the Court found that the State Engineer properly excluded the Tribe’s use of groundwater in Dodge Flat Basin from the calculation of perennial yield because the Tribe has no express or implied rights to the water. Furthermore, the Court found that the change application does not threaten to prove detrimental to the public interest because NLRC’s pumping will be limited to the amount of the unappropriated perennial yield. Finally, the Court held that any potential threat to the public interest or injury to existing rights is a consequence of the Tribe’s unauthorized pumping without a permit or implied right.

A full copy of the opinion is available at:  http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/advancedopinions/909-pyramid-lake-paiute-tribe-v-state-engr.

USG Oregon, LLC, a subsidiary of U.S. Geothermal, Inc., has acquired two geothermal mineral ownership interests in the Neal Hot Springs Project in Eastern Oregon.  USG Oregon now holds significant mineral ownership interests in the Neal Hot Springs geothermal reservoir.  The lands to which the mineral interests are appurtenant currently have two existing production wells and there are plans for new production and injection wells.  USG Oregon’s current plans predict development of 26MW of power production.  For additional information please see the articles linked below.

http://www.usgeothermal.com/NealHotSpringProject.aspx

http://thinkgeoenergy.com/archives/5092

On October 7, 2010 the Oregon Attorney General’s Office released a report discussing the problem areas inhibiting full and meaningful government transparency. The report identifies four areas of particular concern – 1) timelines for responding to public records requests, 2) fees, 3) exemptions, and 4) public meetings – and recommends actions to the Oregon Legislature to remedy the shortfalls in public records and meetings laws.

The 2010 Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual is a publication of the Oregon Department of Justice which outlines current laws and case precedent regarding public records and public meetings. The 2010 updates to the manual include the following topics:

• Public bodies must respond to public record requests within a “reasonable timeframe.” The Attorney’s General’s office now interprets this statutory requirement to mean ten working days for a typical record request.

• Public bodies may charge reasonable fees for production and copy of public records, and may waive fees if the request is in the public interest. The Attorney General’s office recognizes its role in considering the reasonableness of fees, and holds the opinion that public bodies must consider the public’s interests when deciding whether to waive fees.

• There are many exemptions from public records disclosure laws. The report identified 403 exemptions. The Attorney General’s office has called for both organization and elimination of many of the exemptions.

Addressing these problem areas will require coordinated efforts by the legislature, the judiciary, and the Department of Justice. The full report is available at the DOJ website.

These updates to public records laws may have an effect on the ease in which a party may obtain water rights files. Water rights files are public records, and are instrumental for solving water use disputes and determining the scope of water rights. An interested person must apply to the Oregon Water Resources Department in order to inspect or copy water right files. The public records law reforms discussed above may expedite this process, and may result in increased waivers of fees for requests in the public interest.

Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. routinely aids clients with water right file requests. For a flat fee the firm will file the request, go to the Oregon Water Resources Department office to copy the records, and will deliver the records to the client. This service is very helpful to clients who do not have experience requesting the specific public records in question, or who are not in close proximity to the Oregon Water Resources Department office in Salem.

This Wednesday, October 13th, Laura Schroeder will speak to Oregon State University’s Water Resources Graduate Program during the Water Resources Seminar Series. Laura will address “Municipal Water Permitting in an Era of Change: Legal Structures and Policy Trajectories.”

Under the traditional requirements of western water law, an appropriator must divert water, put it to beneficial use, and continuously use the water to prevent loss of his right of use in the future. This “use it or lose it” principle centered on the prevention of water speculation and monopoly. Municipalities in Oregon (as in most prior appropriation states) may apply and receive a permit to appropriate water now for development in the future, a practice that flies in the face of the traditional doctrine.

Laura’s presentation will explore Oregon’s municipal water permitting requirements, and how these requirements are at odds with traditional tenets of western water law. She will discuss the reasons why municipalities are treated differently than other appropriators, and the challenges that municipalities face in providing water to a growing and ever-changing demographic.

For more information about Oregon State University’s upcoming water events, please visit the OSU web site.

By: Sarah Liljefelt

The Clean Water Act (“CWA”) prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source into the navigable waters of the United States without an NPDES permit. The Act defines a “point source” as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance.” 33 U.S.C. §1362(14). Natural runoff is not a point source, and does not require a permit.

Agricultural runoff is exempt by the Act from the permit requirement, even if the runoff is collected into ditches or channels before being returned to a navigable water source. The EPA has consistently held that storm-water runoff from logging roads should be treated similarly to agricultural runoff. Since 1976 the EPA has distinguished between discharges from silviculture (forestry and logging) activities that are a direct result of controlled water use by a person (point source) and those that are the result of natural runoff (non-point source). Thus, it has been the practice that natural runoff from silviculture activities did not require a permit, even if the runoff was collected into discernible channels before discharge.

On August 17, 2010, the Ninth Circuit handed down a decision that invalidated the EPA’s policy of exempting from the CWA’s permitting requirement natural runoff from silviculture activities, if it is collected or controlled before discharge. Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 2010 WL 3222105 (2010), also available at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/17/07-35266.pdf. The court held that the prior silviculure policy was inconsistent with the text of the CWA because the CWA requires permitting for the discharge of pollutants from point sources, and distinguishes between point and non-point sources based on the method of discharge into the body of water, not based on the initial cause of the discharge. Because the defendants in this case, the Oregon State Forester, members of the Oregon Board of Forestry, and various timber companies, channeled storm-water runoff into ditches and pipes before discharge into forest streams and rivers, the court held that these discharges constituted point source pollution, which requires a permit.

The NEDC v. Brown decision will require the EPA to treat controlled runoff of natural storm-water from logging roads as Phase I stormwater: storm-water that is associated with industrial activities and requires an NPDES permit to be released. The Ninth Circuit recognized the sizeable demand that its decision will place on the EPA, but stated its confidence, “given the closely analogous NPDES permitting process for stormwater runoff from other kinds of roads, that EPA will be able to [regulate the logging road runoff] effectively and relatively expeditiously.” Id. at *20. State forestry agencies and timber companies in Oregon, who are charged with maintaining logging roads, must now seek NPDES permits for discharges of natural runoff carried into navigable waters by channels, ditches, pipes, or the like.

Relationships of organizations are important in this week as Laura seeks to obtain approval of changes to assist farmers in Armenia. The organizational chart provides that once Laura’s work with Armenian’s attorneys in completed and implementation legislation is ready for government adoption, it must be approved first by Armenia’s Governing Council of the Millennium Challenge Account-Armenia (GC).

Friday’s highlights at the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) office included confirmation that the contractor developing the agricultural policy and legislation, AVAG Solutions, would indeed complete a further draft of its interim strategy in time for consideration by the GC at its meeting scheduled for next Friday, September 8, 2010.

The GC is chaired by the Republic of Armenia’s Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan. It’s Chief Executive Officer is Laura’s in-country MCA contact, Ara Hovhannisyan who is head of the MCA. The GC’s scheduled meeting on September 10th will consider AVAG’s proposed agricultural water strategy document and the implementing legislation that Laura has been working on during this summer’s trips to Armenia for the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

With only five years left until the 2015 deadline to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on world leaders to attend a summit in New York on 20-22 September 2010 to accelerate progress towards the MDGs Visit the Summit website!

Laura’s work with the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) hopes to assist in reaching the MDG 1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty & Hunger by increasing agricultural production in Armenia, a country which imports almost 80% of the food its people consume. Because of its continental climate, irrigation is essential to agriculture. The agricultural strategy and legislation that Laura is working on is targeting government reforms that will directly improve farmer access to sufficient irrigation supplies at a reasonable costs while seeking to be both financially and environmentally sustainable.

By a second trip in less than two months, Laura hopes to accelerate the government approval of the agricultural strategy and legislation to improve the irrigation sector in Armenia.

Alex Russin, MCC’s resident country director in Armenia, met with Laura Schroeder on Wednesday providing a status of he Armenian government’s adoption of agricultural policy and legislation.

Later, Laura met with Arusyak Alaverdyan, the World Bank Rural/Irrigation Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Unit for the Europe and Central Asia Region, to discuss the possible development of irrigation federations in Armenia. Ms Alaverdyan and the World Bank had previously been instrumental in developing Water User Associations in Armenia.

Approximately 27 hours after leaving the River House in Portland , Laura Schroeder arrived in Yerevan, Armenia. Armenia is in the Causus Mountain range with a continental climate much like that of eastern Oregon, southern Idaho and northern Nevada. Similarly, the climate dictates that water is THE issue when it comes to meeting the Millennium Challenge goal related to food security in this country.

Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. is pleased to announce its sponsorship of the Reno Mustangs’ Co-Ed “D” Softball team’s trip to the ASA National Softball Tournament being held in Portland Oregon. The Reno Mustangs are a tournament softball team that enjoy spending their weekends playing in tournaments to help support local charities and those in need. Those playing in the National Tournament include Schroeder Law Offices own Therese Ure, captain Kevin Jones, manager Chrissy Rodriguez, and teammates Scott, Vince, Mike, Keith, Dave, Emily, Dayna, Courtney and Elli.

The tournament will be held at Portland’s William V. Owens Softball Complex (East Delta Park). The Mustangs first game will be Saturday August 28, 2010 at 10:15 AM!

For more tournament information, see the Washington State ASA web site.

//