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.

A Millennium Challenge-Armenia sponsored study tour will begin in San Francisco, California on August 12, 2010 with a delegation of 19 individuals who have various roles in the Armenian irrigation sector.  California was the likely choice for this tour since the largest population of American Armenian Diaspora is located in the Los Angeles, California area where the tour will end.

The irrigable land in Armenia is 420,000 hectares (1,037,842 acres); however only a third of the irrigable area is cultivated (300-305k hectares or 741,300 acres) as a result of small plots that were designed following Armenia’s independence from Russia which utilized large collective farms.

One of the first sites that the tour will view on August 13, 2010 is the San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority which totals 2,100,000 acres or 849,839.8 hectares. This Authority manages water over twice the total irrigable acres in Armenia. Two member districts of SLDMWA will be visited by the Armenia irrigation sector tour delegation on Friday afternoon including the Firebaugh Canal Water District, which has made news for its water transfers to larger districts, as well as the San Luis Canal Company.

On August 13 the Armenian irrigation tour delegation will visit the Merced Irrigation District. MID’s irrigable acres includes approximately 164,314 acres or 66,495 hectares. Thus, MID provides irrigation service to approximately an area equal to 6% of the total irrigable acreage in Armenia. MID engages in a variety of activities in addition to irrigation such as producing hydro power. Unfortunately, profit making activities such as the production of hydro power are not legally possible for Armenian irrigation districts, called Water User Associations (“WUA”).   Armenia is currently divided into 44 WUAs.

The next day, the Armenian irrigation tour group will tour Friant Dam. The Friant Dam is owned by power concerns and the water stored provides irrigation to over a million acres in San Joaquin Valley. Thus, Friant provides water service to approximately 404685 Hectares which is equivalent to 96.4% of the entire irrigable acreage of Armenia. Similarly the Pine Flat Dam is owned by power concerns with a secondary use for irrigation by such entities as the Fresno Irrigation District.  The Fresno Irrigation District comprises 245,000 acres which is equivalent to 26.4% of the entire irrigable area of Armenia.

Following visits to various filtration system and water infrastructure supply companies on Monday, August 16, 2010, the Armenian irrigation delegation will tour the Alta Irrigation District that services approximately 111,000 cropped acres or approximately 44,920 hectares. This acreage is equivalent to approximately 10.7% of the total irrigated acres in Armenia. Alta’s water supply is provided from the Pine Flat Dam via the Kings River.

On Tuesday, August 17, the Armenian irrigation tour will visit the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. (KDWCD) KDWCD and the Tulare Irrigation District (TID) formed a joint-power authority in 1982 – the Kaweah River Power Authority (KRPA). The KRPA filed for a license to construct a 17MW hydroelectric plant at Terminus Dam and Lake Kaweah. KRPA proceeded with design and construction of the plant, and the plant went on-line in 1992 delivering power to Southern California Edison Company.  TID delivers water to approximately 70,000 acres or 31,160 hectares equivalent to 6.7% of the total irrigable area of Armenia.

Completing Tuesday’s tour, the Armenian irrigation tour will visit the Friant Waterusers Authority otherwise known as the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project (CVP).  The Friant Division provides water to more that a million irrigated acres (404,685 hectares) equivalent to 96.35% of the total irrigable acres of Armenia.

The tour will end on August 19th after visits to gates, drip equipment, the California Training Facilities at California State Poytechnic University at San Luis Obispo and a water management demonstration site.

Laura Schroeder left the USA on Thursday, July 22, 2010 arriving in Yerevan, Armenia over 24 hours later. Her mission is to review the priorities for the development of agricultural policy legislation to meet the priority goal of the Millennium Challenge: to end poverty and hunger.

The United States worked with the Republic of Armenia to decide that the best ways to achieve this goal was to improve agricultural production and markets. A necessary component of increasing agricultural production in Armenia is to improve irrigation systems and management. In 2009, Laura assisted in the drafting of the agricultural policy which was adopted by the RA. Her mission for 2010 is to assist in the drafting of legislation related to the 5 identified priorities of the agricultural policy.

Laura began her work on Monday, July 26, 2010 to participate in the tour of MCC accomplishments with the Prime Minister of Armenia, Tigran Sargsyan, and the US Ambassador to Armenia, Marie L. Yovanovitch.

The tour included (1) A visit to the community of Merdzavan to see the lower Hrazdan main canal that was rehabilitated by funds from MCA-Armenia;
(2) A visit to the community of Artimet to see the rehabilitation of third level (near farm) ditches also rehabilitated by funds from MCA-Armenia;
(3) A visit to the community of Gridoedov to see the irrigation/agricultural development site funded by MCA-Armenia. This farm is owned by Sevan Jamalyan; and
(4) Finally a visit to a water user association,  Vagharshapat, whose director is Surik Sedrakyan.

Click here for more news of MCA

Laura is meeting with government officials from the Public Services Regulatory Commission to discuss the legislation.

In addition, she has already met with contractors assisting the implementation including AVAG Solutions, Ltd, and VISTAA.

The first goal of the Millennium Challenge adopted by United Nations declaration in 2000 is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml

The three targets for this goal are: (1) halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day; (2) achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people; and (3) halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.

In Armenia this goal has translated into improving agricultural food production which in Armenia requires improved irrigation facilities and methods.

Laura Schroeder’s July-August 2010 mission is to work with the Millennium Challenge group and its contractor to draft legislation that will adopt and promote the goals of agricultural water policy to achieve improved use of land and water resources in Armenia for food production.

Now you can follow Schroeder Law Offices on Just click on the logo!