Each year during the month of March, the United Nations (“UN”) hosts a “World Water Day.” Friday, March 22nd marks 2019’s World Water Day focusing on sustainable water development goals for everyone by 2030. Annually, the UN hosts World Water Day to bring attention to the world’s water crisis and address reasons why so many people are left without clean drinking water. A series of international events are scheduled to call attention to the world’s water crisis and offer forums to exchange ideas regarding water availability through sustainable development.

As 2019’s theme is “Leaving no one behind,” the UN has made resources available to the public to explore the theme – what the problem is, how it relates to water, what “safe water” means, and why it’s so important as a human right. The UN’s notes that more than 2.1 billion people live without safe water at home, and as many as approximately 4 billion people (nearly two-thirds of the world’s population) experience severe water scarcity at least one month of the year. In effort to combat the possibility of 700 million people worldwide being displaced by intense water scarcity by the year 2030, this year’s theme focuses on what can be done to include all demographics in conversations about water development and recognizing the right to water for all people.

The “Fact Sheet” on World Water Day 2019 shows us how we can be involved, whether it’s sharing resources or through organizing events or activities. There is also a list of events found at their website, both local and international. Though many of the currently scheduled events are taking place internationally, sharing information with those around you is equally important.

            The Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) will present proposed temporary rules to the Water Resource Commission that would place a temporary hold on Upper Klamath Basin well regulation for two years, during which time OWRD would only regulate off wells within 500 feet of surface water sources in response to validated calls for water. Since the administrative phase of the Klamath Basin Adjudication concluded in 2013, groundwater users have challenged OWRD’s application of Oregon’s conjunctive management rules to wells in the Klamath Basin. The deluge of litigation has cost the OWRD millions of dollars and does not appear to have an end in sight.

            OWRD may be offering a temporary truce to groundwater users while the agency reviews and determines a “longer term approach” to water management in the Klamath Basin. The temporary rules, expected to go into effect in April, would remain in effect until March 1, 2021. The proposed rules would eliminate the rules adopted in preparation for the defunct Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement (“UKBCA”), and replace them with deceptively simple rules for regulating calls for water. The Upper Klamath Basin has been regulated under original Division 25 and Division 9 rules since 2013, and the proposed temporary rules propose a third regulatory regime in under a decade, with a fourth to be revealed in two-years time. If no new rules are adopted by March 1, 2021, regulation would revert to the conjunctive management rules under OAR Division 9. The proposed rulemaking is available at the following link: https://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/misc/vault/vault.aspx?Type=WrdNotice&notice_item_id=8113.

            Under the prior appropriation doctrine, when a water user makes a call for water, OWRD’s watermasters investigate to validate the call. Junior water users may be ordered to shut off water use to allow senior water users to receive their full delivery of water. Oregon’s conjunctive management rules are designed to allow regulation of hydraulically connected surface water and groundwater as a single source of water. Oregon’s conjunctive management rules have historically been found in OWRD’s Division 9 rules (Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 690 Division 9). However, a portion of the Division 9 rules were superseded by original Division 25 when those rules were in effect.

            The Division 9 rules require, under certain conditions, that water use rights appropriating water from groundwater sources be regulated in priority with surface water use rights when a valid, senior “call” is made. Unless the well drawing from an unconfined aquifer is within one-quarter mile of a surface water stream, OWRD must find that the source of water appropriated by the well is “hydraulically connected” to the surface stream, meaning that water can move between the surface water stream and the adjacent groundwater aquifer. OWRD presumes any well closer than one-quarter mile is hydraulically connected to the surface stream. Further, wells are presumed to cause “potential for substantial interference” if they are (1) within one-quarter mile of a stream, (2) the appropriated rate of groundwater use is greater than 5 cubic feet per second, and within one mile of the stream, (3) the appropriated rate of groundwater use exceeds 1% of a pertinent adopted minimum perennial streamflow or instream water use right, or the natural flow of the surface water source that is exceeded 80 percent of the time, or (4) continued use of the well for 30 days would result in stream depletion greater than 25% of the well’s rate of appropriation.  Stream depletion is calculated using computer modeling, the method for which OWRD has substantially changed over the last several years, creating a moving target for water users wishing to challenge OWRD’s application of the rules to their groundwater uses. Under Division 9, wells located over one mile from surface water sources may only be controlled through designation of a critical groundwater area.

            OWRD’s proposed temporary rules are designed to operate in lieu of Division 9 for the Upper Klamath Basin. Rather than merely putting the majority of groundwater regulation on hold while permanent rules are considered and adopted, OWRD’s proposed rules factually declare that all groundwater sources are hydraulically connected to surface water in the Klamath Basin, and that all wells that withdraw groundwater in the Klamath Basin reduce groundwater discharge and surface water flow. Since these factual findings are totally unnecessary for the purpose of temporarily staying regulation while enacting permanent rules, many view the rules as an attempt by OWRD to cut off current and future legal challenges to OWRD’s regulation of groundwater wells. Under the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act, state agencies are afforded a degree of deference by courts to their factual findings and legal conclusions, and OWRD’s efforts to make the aforementioned findings—findings that are currently disputed by the scientific community—have the (likely intended) effect of garnering support for a claim of deference by OWRD in legal disputes. Moreover, and perhaps most troubling, OWRD’s proposed rules state that OWRD can regulate off a groundwater user if interference “impends,” meaning the junior water user need not even be interfering with the senior water user’s right to be regulated off by OWRD. This provision is in clear contradiction with the Oregon Ground Water Act that requires actual “impairment or interference,” rather than mere speculation, prior to regulation. ORS 537.525(9).

            Many water users oppose the new rules, realizing that the inducement of temporary regulatory relief will come at a very high price that will likely eradicate groundwater irrigation of agriculture in the Upper Basin. Because the rules also determine that all wells in the Klamath Basin are hydraulically connected to surface water, the temporary rules remove the threshold question that allowed Division 9 rules to apply to an even larger area than previously implicated by the rules. (See: https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/water/scaled-back-klamath-groundwater-regulation-debated/article_8e22ab30-23fb-11e9-951c-33070f078fa7.html?utm_source=Capital+Press&utm_campaign=6366754200-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_30_05_40&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3bfe2c1612-6366754200-241522174.) Other persons have criticized OWRD’s temporary rules for harming downstream senior surface water users, like the Klamath Tribes that hold senior surface water rights. (See: https://www.heraldandnews.com/members/forum/letters/proposed-groundwater-drilling-rule-unsustainable/article_77126c71-c978-5ade-9be3-82c025359f40.html.)

            Under OWRD’s application of the Division 9 rules (which is currently being challenged in court), 140 wells in the Klamath Basin would be subject to regulation. Under the proposed temporary Division 25 rules, only 7 wells would be regulated until March 1, 2021. Over the next two years, OWRD asserts it will continue to study the hydrogeology of the Upper Klamath Basin and enact permanent rules to replace the temporary Division 25 rules. The water wars in the Klamath Basin continue, and groundwater users may get a very short period of relief from regulation while OWRD once again moves the bar for how OWRD will regulate off groundwater users in the Upper Klamath Basin.

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

The 20th annual National Groundwater Awareness Week will occur between March 10 – March 16, 2019, and this year’s theme for awareness is “Think.” Though a simple theme, through “Think,” the National Groundwater Association (“NGWA”) urges us to “think” about how we impact our groundwater resources in our everyday lives.

For National Groundwater Awareness Week 2019, NGWA encourages us to consider small steps taken to improve the general public’s awareness of groundwater use and its importance in our every day lives, i.e. “Think” about not running the water while you brush your teeth, or, “Think” about fixing the leaking faucet. Sometimes it’s the smallest things that makes the biggest differences!

Taking steps to conserve and protect groundwater is of utmost importance to all as we depend upon groundwater for basic needs. According to NGWA research, approximately 132 million American rely on groundwater for drinking water. Besides drinking water, groundwater consists of a major resource in food and power production, including irrigation, livestock, manufacturing, mining, thermoelectric power, and many other resources. NGWA offers the following facts for consideration:

• Americans use 79.6 billion gallons of groundwater each day.
• Groundwater makes up 20 to 30 times more water than all U.S. lakes, streams, and rivers combined.
• 44 percent of the U.S. population depends on groundwater for its drinking water supply.
• More than 13.2 million households have their own well, representing 34 million people.

“Think” about that!

As a part of 2019’s Groundwater Awareness Week, NGWA will be participating in the Water Resources Congressional Summit to bring federal support for groundwater awareness. Topics for the summit will focus on bringing federal support for detection and remediation regarding PFAS contamination, increasing efforts to promote groundwater recharge, and bolstering support for drinking water infrastructure improvement. More information and educational tools on the 2019 summit topics can be found at the NGWA’s online database.

“Think” about what you might do to bring groundwater awareness to your friends and family!

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the Public Trust Doctrine preserves submerged and submersible lands for public use and the state bears the responsibility of preserving and protecting the public’s right to use the water upon it. Can this doctrine have an impact on your water rights, and if so, how? The Nevada Supreme Court is currently considering how the Public Trust Doctrine will apply in Nevada. Specifically, the two certified questions being considered by the Court are:

1. Does the public trust doctrine apply to rights already adjudicated and settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation and, if so, to what extent?
2. If the public trust doctrine applies and allows for reallocation of rights settled under the doctrine of prior appropriation, does the abrogation of such adjudicated or vested rights constitute a “taking” under the Nevada Constitution requiring payment of just compensation?

Several Amicus briefs have been filed and more are expected.

Most recently the Nevada Water Resources Association held a discussion at their annual conference debating the many issues related to the intersection of Public Trust Doctrine and already Decreed water rights on the Walker River system. Schroeder Law Offices’ shareholder Therese Ure will be presenting in March on the Public Trust Doctrine and how it applies to water rights to a small group in Lovelock Nevada, to further consider the intersection of Decreed water rights and this Doctrine.

The U.S. Society for Irrigation and Drainage Professionals (USCID) will be holding their 12^th International Conference on Irrigation and Drainage in Reno, NV on November 5-8, 2018 and we are excited to announce that Therese Ure has been selected as Conference Co-Chair. The conference theme this year is Basin Water Management – Challenges in Water Management at the Basin Scale. Under this theme the specific topics that will be presented on include:

• Basin Water Management/Governance/Jurisdictional Issues
• Competing Urban, Industrial, Agricultural and Environmental Water Uses
• Environment
• Basin Water Planning
• Water Supply and Demand Management
• Water Transfers
• Conjunctive Use of Groundwater and Surface Water
• Technologies

The conference planning committee is currently accepting abstracts for proposed papers that are specifically related the conference topics listed above. If you are interested in submitting your abstract the deadline is March 15, 2019. For additional information regarding the call for papers please see the call for papers announcement or visit the USCID.

For other relevant dates, please find the conference schedule listed below:

• Abstracts Due  —        March 15, 2019
• Notify Authors —        April 1, 2019
• Draft Papers Due —    June 3, 2019
• Comments to Authors  — July 22, 2019
• Final Papers Due —     August 30, 2019
• Conference — November 5-8, 2019

We hope you have the opportunity to attend this highly educational event!

As I attend hearings on the Diamond Valley Adjudication, I am continually reminded of the importance of historical research to show pre-code water use. While this has been a topic of blogs in the past, we cannot stress enough how spending the time now will only benefit you in the future. 

This is not an item to procrastinate on! One claimant mentioned he spent his time researching water use in the county records over the last few winters! Yes, it can take that long, so start now! 

In order to show this pre-code water use in an adjudication proceeding, information such as chain of title to the first possessory entry man is important. You may consider ordering the patent files from National Archives to obtain that information. Thoroughly review the pre-code tax records for your predecessor in interest to determine what they were being taxed on. This helps to establish proof of grazing if they were taxed on animals, establishes proof of irrigation if taxed on hay or crop production, etc.  Weaving this quilt to bring together all the historical facts is of utmost importance! 

While some of these adjudication proceedings might not occur for decades, it is important to complete this research now!  Find the records while they are easy to locate and you have the time to track them down!

For more information on the types of information that can support pre-code water rights, see our article previously posted titled How to Research Land & Water for Proof of Vested Nevada Water Right Claims.

The Fallon Range Training Complex (“FRTC”) Modernization Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) comment period has now been extended so that public comments may be submitted through Thursday, February 14, 2019. There are several public informational materials available to the general public regarding the modernization, materials can be found at the draft EIS website and include fact sheets and maps regarding the management of natural and cultural resources for FRTC.

The FRTC Modernization Draft EIS assesses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed modernization of the Navy’s FRTC located in Fallon, Nevada and focuses specifically on modernizing the complex to provide the Navy with more realistic training capabilities while maintaining the safety of the local community. The public is encouraged to review the materials and submit comment should they have concerns regarding adverse impacts to the community; comments can be submitted to the Draft EIS by mail or online at the FRTC Modernization database. All comments that are submitted during the public comment become a part of the public record and substantive comments will be addressed in the Final EIS.

The Final EIS statement is expected to be prepared and available to the public by Fall 2019, and will include updates to the Draft EIS and response to any substantive comments submitted during the draft comment period. Once the Final EIS statement is released, there will be a 30-day waiting period for consideration of comments and public review. The Record of Decision is expected to be available by Winter 2019-2020.

Public workshops on the Humboldt River Modeling Efforts will be held in January 2019! The Nevada Division of Water Resources (“NDWR”), in conjunction with US Geological Survey and Desert Research Institute, will be presenting the latest information in the ongoing studies of the Humboldt River Basins. Times and locations for the public workshops can be found in NDWR’s official announcement.

The workshops are held for the general public and attendance is encouraged as officials work to prepare a conjunctive management plan for administration and management of groundwater and surface water of the Humboldt River and its tributaries.

Humboldt River Modeling workshops are held on an annual basis to update the public regarding governance and use of the river system. A study began in 2015 and the workshops are used to update and provide information to the draft report, with input from the public water users as well as hydrology and geology specialists at NDWR, the US Geological Survey, and the Desert Research Institute. A draft of the final report is expected to be prepared by the first quarter of 2019.

            Are aquifers public or private property? The question is more complicated than it first appears! To answer the question, one must dive down into the fundamental origins of our legal system, fraught with complicated Latin phrases, just like the dangers of the deep itself!

            Aquifers are scientifically defined as a “body of permeable rock which can contain or transmit groundwater.”[1] However, the word, in its common use, refers to the groundwater, not the permeable rock that actually makes up the aquifer. Traditionally, rocks, soil, and dirt are considered private property under the ad coelum doctrine, making them private property owned by the overlying landowner.[2] Ownership under this doctrine reaches from the atmosphere above to the center of the Earth, shaped like vertical column. However, water is traditionally seen as commonly owned by the public, available for private use under the ferae naturae doctrine. Under this doctrine, water is commonly owned, like wild animals, but can be captured and privately used, like by hunting and capturing it. The various water doctrines, including prior appropriation, the rule of capture, and riparianism, all derive from a negotiation between these two doctrines.

            The law continues to navigate the paradox of aquifer ownership: Is the aquifer the water or the rocks holding it? At least one court is now facing this challenge. The California case Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Desert Water Agency, et al places this question at the heart of the litigation.[3] The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”) filed a suit to protect the aquifer underlying their reservation from groundwater use that threatened to cause subsidence, contamination degrading water quality, and aquifer recharge activities that filled storage space with foreign water. As part of the Tribe’s claim, they assert that the Tribe owns pore spaces (storage) within the aquifer that are being permanently destroyed by subsidence. The Tribe argues under property principles that the pore spaces are a part of the reservation under principles of the ad coelum doctrine. The opposing parties argue that the pore spaces are publicly owned, and the Tribe cannot claim injury to something they never owned or, in the opposing argument, “captured” under the ferae naturae doctrine. While the trial is still ongoing, the court will eventually have to face the core question: Are aquifer pore spaces public or private property?

            While the debate over ancient Latin phrases, injury, and rocks may seem like an uninteresting legal squabble, the results of the case could have real ramifications for many groundwater issues! For example, could an artificial recharge project seeking to replenish depleted aquifers actually be trespassing, if aquifers are privately owned? Or, if publicly owned, can a neighbor to the recharge project whose land is inundated with water have shaky ground to make a claim, since they do not own the pore spaces? Courts will likely have to wrestle with these questions for many years to come.

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

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

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

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

On Tuesday, November 6, Schroeder Law Offices traveled to Keizer, Oregon to teach a Water Law Bootcamp for 200 attendees, hosted by the Marion Soil & Water Conservation District. The Bootcamp was attended by small farmers, commercial farmers, homeowners with domestic wells, and more. Attorneys Laura Schroeder and Lindsay Thane were warmly welcomed by members of the community eager to hear all about water use rights in Oregon.

If you are interested in hosting a Water Rights Bootcamp in 2019, please contact Legal Secretary Mollie Finke at 503-281-4100 or m.finke@water-law.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On October 23, 2018, President Trump signed America’s Water Infrastructure Act (“AWIA”), also known as the Water Resource Development Act, into law. This bipartisan bill, which previously passed the House of Representatives on September 13, 2018 and the Senate on October 10, 2018, aims to improve dams, levees, ports, and waterways throughout the United States. It also amends the Safe Water Drinking and allocates funds toward more efficient and sustainable water quality control and management, particularly in underserved communities.

As its name might suggest, one of AWIA’s main goals is to improve America’s water systems. Under AWIA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will receive around $3.7 billion to plan, study, and develop water projects to alleviate strain on existing infrastructure. In the Northwest, the Port of Seattle is specifically slated to undergo construction to improve navigation channels, as are several other key ports around the United States. AWIA also has specific provisions that focus on flood protection measures on the Snake River and levee improvements in Clatsop County, Oregon, among others.

One of the most notable aspects of AWIA is how it addresses the ongoing water shortages in Northern California/Southern Oregon’s Klamath Basin. AWIA provides a much-needed $10 million annuity to the Bureau of Reclamation to address ongoing water issues in the Klamath Basin, and provides avenues for farmers to make use of Klamath Project canals to deliver water to their farms. AWIA also focuses on increasing efficiency and sustainability of hydropower and delivery of affordable electricity to those same farmers.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ blog for more updates on AWIA’s progress and impacts on water in the Northwest and the United States!

We all know that pumpkins make great fall decorations and are an icon of this Halloween holiday, however they also provide many more less known benefits. According to the Old Farmer’s Almanac, all parts of pumpkins are edible except the stem and if kept in a cool, dry space, will keep for up to 6 months or more! Pumpkins are a good source of fiber, vitamin C, several of the Vitamin B complexes, potassium and carotenoids that play a role in cancer prevention, controlling blood-sugar levels and boosts the immune system.

Adding pumpkins into crop rotations help farmers. Their presence helps soil maintain a nutrient balance, reduces weed problems and decreases the likelihood of disease spores, eggs and pests. According to Texas A&M Horticulture, planting pumpkins directly after harvesting sweet corn helps to decay a coarse crop refuse that is resistant to many other crops. And planting pumpkins directly after grass crops results in fewer diseases to the pumpkins. Pumpkins are also unique in that they can tolerate soils with low pH levels as well as extremely acidic soils.

Pumpkins are also somewhat tolerant of dry soil conditions and in certain locations farmers can rely solely on rainfall. When rainfall is inadequate, irrigation is essential especially during the pollination and fruit set periods. Many farmers have found that using a drip system to water their pumpkin crop saves time and money by using less water than flood irrigation or center pivot sprinklers.

Pumpkins have both male and female flowers and pollen transfer is a necessary event. Historically many farmers relied on native bees to transfer the pollen, however, due to a decline of bee population in certain areas, some farmers have resorted to renting bee hives for the first few weeks of flowering. Weeds, insects and diseases are a constant battle for pumpkin farmers as well. Farmers are in constant flux of fighting off pests and diseases while maintaining the integrity of the environment necessary for other activities such as bee pollination.

Pumpkins are beneficial in so many other ways than their decorative purposes. The next time you see a pumpkin, remember all of their unique qualities and ways they benefit the farming industry.

Taking time away from their busy schedule, Schroeder Law Offices attorneys and staff spent an educational weekend together while also celebrating their newest achievements!

Oktoberfest! On Friday, October 12, 2018, Schroeder Law Offices hosted an “Oktoberfest” event in downtown Portland to honor attorney Sarah Liljefelt as the newest Shareholder of the firm and to celebrate our newest associate attorney, Jakob Wiley. We were happy to share their recent accomplishments with many of our Oregon clients, consultants, family, and friends.

Farm Tour! After an evening celebrating, Schroeder Law Offices packed it up and headed out to the country on Saturday for an educational opportunity touring a client’s farm. We learned about different agricultural irrigation techniques, multiple land use opportunities combining mining and agriculture, and processing various agricultural products from farm to table.

Utilization Concepts! We then met up with Professor Todd Jarvis of the Institute for Natural Resources at Oregon State University to discuss water rights issues in the West, learning a bit about the water basin utilization project he and associate attorney Jakob Wiley are working on. Professor Jarvis and attorney Wiley (with some other contributors) are collaborating to write a book on the unitization of aquifers as a way to manage water use – while still in the research phase, the book is expected to be completed by the Summer of 2019. We look forward to sharing their discoveries and plans as they move forward.

We Escaped! Finally, Schroeder Law Offices took the opportunity to do some additional team building and participated in two different escape rooms at “Stumptown Escape Games.” The games were challenging but our teams escaped by putting their heads together and succeeding under pressure!

Schroeder Law Offices is celebrating 27 years of representing water users in the West! To celebrate, SLO’s attorneys and staff from several states will travel to Portland, Oregon for an Oktoberfest party at the Portland City Grill to thank our clients, consultants, friends, and families for their contributions to our success over the years. SLO will also be celebrating attorney Sarah Liljefelt as its newest shareholder, attorney Lindsay Thane’s admission to the Montana Bar, and our newest attorney in our Portland office, Jakob Wiley. As part of the weekend event, the SLO crew will visit a farmer and food processor client in the Willamette Valley to learn more about their operation. We are all very excited for the opportunity to spend time with the members of SLO from different states!  

New Associate Attorney Jakob Wiley successfully completed his defense of Collective Aquifer Governance: It’s the Water and a “Hole” Lot More! on September 17, 2018, completing his Masters of Science in Water Resources Policy and Management. Jakob completed the Concurrent J.D./M.S. program between Oregon State University (“OSU”) and the University of Oregon School of law, https://gradwater.oregonstate.edu/concurrent-jdms-degree-program. Jakob’s successful defense of his research paper marked the capstone of his MS studies at OSU.

The paper unravels the differences between the current paradigms in groundwater and aquifer governance, showing that the present focus on groundwater has struggled to meet the challenges of true aquifer governance. Aquifers are composed of a variety of resources, like storage spaces, thermal properties, chemical and biological contaminants, and hydraulic pressures. Jakob coins the term transresources to describe these components, inspired by transdisciplinary approaches in academia. To achieve true aquifer governance, transresources must be included in the governance strategy. Unfortunately, traditional groundwater management only attempts to address these issues through the lens of groundwater regulation.

To provide a guide, Jakob’s paper compares aquifer governance with unitization agreements used in the oil and gas industry. These agreements were developed to counter the inefficient, competitive, and costly over-drilling of wells in the early years of hydrocarbon development. Unitization agreements are fundamentally a contract between reservoir owners. Unitization agreements convert the right to pump into shares of the resources present in the reservoir. By pooling the rights to withdraw oil and gas into a “unit”, a more equitable, efficient, and voluntary governance system is created, while also incorporating any pumping, spacing, and pressure management laws.

Jakob’s research translates this agreement approach into a system of aquifer governance. The theoretical approach would create an agreement among aquifer users, allowing them to contractually change the incentives and use patterns of the aquifer. For example, conversion from flood to sprinkler irrigation can improve “efficiency” but also dramatically reduce artificial recharge of the aquifer. A “collective aquifer governance agreement” – Jakob’s translation of a unitization agreement – could be used to incentivize groundwater users to adopt efficient sprinklers while incentivizing beneficial activities, like incidental aquifer recharge from flood irrigation, improving the overall sustainability of the aquifer system.

The key feature of a collective aquifer governance agreement is the design of shares. By allocating shares to each transresource, the system of water allocation can reflect the scientific and physical effects of groundwater and aquifer resource use (like geothermal energy production, storage, subsidence, in situ bioremediation, ect). Directly connecting rights with physical effects of aquifer use can internalize any negative externalities of aquifer use, when properly designed, and could support a conjunctive surface and ground-water (or any other transresource) market.

Jakob’s work on this topic will continue as he works with Dr. Todd Jarvis of OSU on an upcoming book expanding the theory and providing guidance for the next stage in groundwater management: collective aquifer governance, showing oil and water really do mix!

Jakob’s complete research paper is publicly available at the following link: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_projects/pn89dd30b

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

In 2013, the Oregon legislature adopted Senate Bill 838, which imposed a five year moratorium on motorized mining techniques in rivers and streams designated as essential salmon habitat.[1] A group of mining companies, a mining district, and individual miners with mining claims on federal lands in Oregon who use motorized mining techniques called “suction dredge mining” sued the State of Oregon.[2]

While the litigation progressed, the Oregon legislature passed Senate Bill 3, which repealed Senate Bill 838; however, the litigation continued as a challenge to Senate Bill 3. Senate Bill 3 imposes a permanent restriction on the use of motorized mining equipment in waters classified as “essential anadromous salmonid habitat,” which is defined as “the habitat that is necessary to prevent the depletion of indigenous and anadromous salmonid species during their life history stages of spawning and rearing.”[3] The restriction in Senate Bill 3 only applies within rivers and streams and does not extend onto the banks of the waterways.[4]

Bureau of Land Management regulations issued under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act require mining operators comply with applicable state environmental laws that do not conflict with federal law.[5] The regulations also state there is no conflict between state and federal law when the state law requires a higher standard of protection for public lands than does the federal law.[6]

While “reasonable environmental regulation” may be imposed by state law on federal lands, the miners argued Senate Bill 3 is preempted by federal law because it is: (1) a state land use planning law, not an environmental regulation; (2) “prohibitory, not regulatory, in its fundamental character;” and (3) not a reasonable environmental regulation.[7] The miners asserted Senate Bill 3 is a land use planning law rather than environmental regulation because it prohibits a specific use of the land in particular zones.[8]

The District Court of Oregon’s grant of Summary Judgment in favor of the State of Oregon was appealed and heard by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court determined the Federal Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 declared that a policy of the U.S. is to develop an “economically sound and stable domestic mining” industry, but subject to “environmental needs.”[9] The Court ruled Senate Bill 3 is an environmental regulation, not a land use planning law, and it has a specific environmental purpose: to protect sensitive fish habitat.[10] Additionally, the Court found Senate Bill 3 is not a prohibitory regulation that violates federal law because it does not completely prohibit all mining activities on federal lands.[11] Finally, the Court found Senate Bill 3 reasonably restricted mining activities in waters on federal land to protect essential salmonid habitat because it only regulated certain types of mining and in certain waters.[12]

Judge Smith dissented from the majority opinion, asserting that Senate Bill 3 is a land use regulation since it “does not identify an environmental standard to be achieved” and prohibits all motorized mining operations irrespective of the miner’s compliance with state and federal environmental standards, including the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act.[13]

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

[1] Bohmker v. Oregon, __ F.3d __, 5 (9th Cir. 2018).

[2] Id. at 7.

[3] Id. at 7-8 (quoting ORS 196.810(1)(g)(B)).

[4] Id. at 9, fn 2.

[5] Id. at 21-22 (citing 43 C.F.R. § 3809.3).

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 27.

[8] Id. at 30.

[9] Id. at 17 (quoting 30 U.S.C. § 21a).

[10] Id. at 27-28.

[11] Id. at 50.

[12] Id. at 53-54.

[13] Id. at 64, 67-68.

Incoming J.D. Paralegal (Attorney upon Bar passage) Jakob Wiley attended the University of California Cooperative Extension’s regular Rice Production Workshop held at Lundberg Family Farms in Richvale, California. The seminar was attended by farmers, local businesses, and water district personnel, providing a broad overview of rice production and the challenges faced by producers.

Water in rice production isn’t just about irrigation. Water serves a critical role in temperature regulation, weed control, and field management. For example, water is used to prevent excessive cooling of the rice flowers, which inhibits pollination. Exposure of the flower to cool temperatures can “blank” the rice (prevent the grain of rice from forming) and reduce yields. Water also acts as a blanket, keeping the flowers warm during cool nights. Careful management of water also ensures the safe use of pesticides and herbicides (and avoids costly fines). Water plays a critical role in the growth, development, and success of a rice field.

More information about rice production can be found in the 2018 Rice Production Workshop Manual available at http://rice.ucanr.edu/Reports-Publications/Rice_Production_Workshop_Manual/.

Jakob will add his new knowledge about rice production to his background in cattle ranching and alfalfa production to better assist with your water needs!

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

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“agencies”)  issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to seek additional comments on the repeal of the 2015 “waters of the United States” rule under the Clean Water Act (“2015 WOTUS Rule”).

In July 2017, the agencies first issued a notice of a proposed rulemaking to repeal the 2015 WOTUS Rule. On February 6, 2018, the agencies published a final rule in the Federal Register adding an applicability date of February 6, 2020 to the 2015 WOTUS Rule, but at that time the agencies did not repeal the 2015 WOTUS Rule. The applicability date of February 6, 2020, makes it such that the pre-2015 regulatory definition of waters of the United States will be in effect until February 6, 2020 or until the 2015 WOTUS Rule is repealed. For additional background, see Schroeder Law Offices blog post, available here.

The agencies issued the supplemental notice to provide the public an opportunity to comment on additional agency considerations to support the repeal of the 2015 WOTUS Rule that were not discussed in the July 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking. The supplemental notice also aims to clarify that the agencies’ July 2017 proposal would completely and permanently repeal the 2015 WOTUS Rule in its entirety, replacing it with the pre-2015 regulatory definition.[1]

The supplemental notice also provides an additional comment period for interested parties to consider new factors and reasoning the agencies recently published as further support for the agencies’ decision to consider repealing the 2015 WOTUS Rule.[2] The additional information and comment period provided by the supplemental notice may also be designed to strengthen the July 2017 rulemaking process as any final rule will inevitably be challenged in a lawsuit.[3]

While the pre-2015 waters of the United States regulatory definition is in effect, the agencies will draft a new regulatory framework to define “waters of the United States.” The agencies will then publish a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to adopt a new definition.[4]

The public has 30 days to comment on the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. The comment period closes August 13, 2018.

[1] EPA New Release, EPA and Army Seek Additional Public Comment on ‘Waters of the U.S.’ Repeal (June 29, 2018) https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-and-army-seek-additional-public-comment-waters-us-repeal.

[2] Environmental Protection Agency, Definition of Waters of the United States-Recodification of Preexisting Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 32,227 (July 12, 2018) https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203-15104.

[3] Juan Carlos Rodriguez, EPA, Corps Expand Legal Case Against Obama Water Rule, Law360 (June 29, 2018) available at https://www.law360.com/articles/1059064/epa-corps-expand-legal-case-against-obama-water-rule.

[4] EPA, Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rulemaking, https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule/step-two-revise.

A lot has changed since 1909, when Oregon enacted its Water Code and the water use permit system began. Obtaining a water use permit can be a lengthy and detailed process. If you’re not careful you can limit the flexibility of your water permit through self-imposed conditions without realizing it.

For example, Schroeder Law Offices recently represented a business that stated on its groundwater permit application that it planned to use drip irrigation. The business did not plan to exclusively use drip, but drip was one form of irrigation used for part of its operation. As a result, the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) proposed to impose a condition in the Proposed Final Order (PFO) that the business would be limited exclusively to drip irrigation. This would have significantly reduced the business’s flexibility and the marketability of its property in the future. However, our office was able to successfully remove the proposed condition from the water use permit that was issued.

This example provides an important reminder to very carefully prepare water use permit applications, and closely review OWRD’s initial reviews, proposed orders, and final orders/permits. Otherwise, water users may be subject to unnecessarily restricting permit conditions. Water use professionals, such as attorneys or consultants, can provide assistance to prepare permit applications and review OWRD documentation regarding the applications. Water use application forms are available on OWRD’s website, https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/pages/index.aspx. For more information about water right processing see: http://www.water-law.com/water-rights-articles/get-an-oregon-water-right/.

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

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Nathan Klinger, a student at Willamette Law School.