Reports of a broken barge lock at the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River surfaced on September 9th. The crack was discovered last week and crews began working Monday morning on repairs. The cause of the damage is unknown. To begin the repairs, the crews must first demolish the cracked concrete section. It remains unclear, however, when the repairs will be complete.

Navigation locks allow barges to pass through the concrete dams that were built across the Columbia and Snake Rivers to generate hydroelectricity for the West. A boat will enter the lock which is then sealed. The water is then lowered or raised inside the lock to match the level of the river on the other side of the dam. When the levels match, the lock is then opened and the boat exits.

The concrete that needs to be repaired acts as the seal for the lock. The damage to the concrete at the Bonneville Dam resulted in significant leaking—enough that water levels were falling when the lock was in operation. Thus, immediate repair was necessary.

The Columbia River is a major shipping highway and the shutdown means barges cannot transport millions of tons of wheat, wood, and other goods from the inland Pacific Northwest to other markets.

Eight million tons of cargo travel inland on the Columbia and Snake rivers each year. Kristin Meira, the executive director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association said that 53% of U.S. wheat exports were transported on the Columbia River in 2017.

According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, about $2 billion in commercial cargo travels the system annually, and it is the top export gate in the U.S. for wheat and barley and the number two export gate for corn.

This shutdown comes as terrible news for farmers in inland Oregon, Washington, and Idaho trying to ship their wheat out. Rob Rich, vice president of marine services for Shaver Transportation, said that farmers truck their wheat to 27 inland grain elevators where it is loaded onto barges headed to the Pacific Ocean. He also stated that rail and trucking are not reliable alternatives.

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

The year 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the Willamette Valley Project, a tumultuous time in the history of the project. These dams are operated by the United States Army Corp of Engineers’ (“Corp”) Portland District, which utilizes 13 dams to prevent flooding and provide water storage for various water users and aquatic species in Western Oregon. (https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Locations/Willamette-Valley/) Since their construction, flooding like that seen in the Christmas Flood of 1964 has been rare. This April, the Willamette Valley saw substantial flooding as an “atmospheric river” overwhelmed the capacity of the dams, forcing the Corp release water at historic rates to prevent overtopping of the dams. (https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2019/04/07/oregon-flooding-willamette-river-santiam-river-eugene-salem/3393877002/). As these dams were created specifically to prevent flooding, what went wrong?

The various interests in water stored in these dams leads to considerable controversy over how to operate the Willamette Valley Project dams. Combined, these dams hold 1.6 million acre-feet in the summer months for various uses including municipal, irrigation, and hydropower. The controversy in operations relates to these uses. For example, storing additional water in the dams benefits electricity production and recreational boating uses (requiring high lake levels), but harms aquatic species and irrigators. Releasing the stored water during the summer reduces electricity production and leaves little for migrating salmon in the fall, but provides irrigation for many Willamette Valley farms. The Corp is left to balance these competing interests for the use of “conservation storage” (the water stored for use in the summer months).

Recently, the Corp considered reallocating water between theses interests, which focuses primarily on how to use the water stored in the summer months. We have discussed this potential reallocation here: https://www.water-law.com/study-willamette-valley-project-reallocation/. The allocations of uses between these interests has not been reconsidered since the original construction of the dams. (The Capital Press recently covered the discussion here: https://bit.ly/2IyzCfr). While the reallocation will determine how stored water is used, the dam regulation curves determine when the dams are emptied and space is made for flood mitigation.

Flood control is another “interest” competing for the Corp’s attention and a reservior’s capacity. In the winter, these dams are emptied to allow the space to be used to absorb the brunt of storms. In the spring, the dams are gradually refilled up to their maximum operating capacity during the summer, for use for power and water storage. The image to the right depicts the regulation curve for the Cougar Reservoir, which stores water from the South Fork of the McKenzie River. The Corp developed the operating curve for the Cougar Reservoir in 1964, located in the Cougar Reservoir Regulation Manual. (https://bit.ly/2PtpANm). Each dam has its own manual, determining how and when water is released from the reservoir. While the allocation determines how stored water is used, the “conservation storage” hump determines when, how much, and for how long the dams are filled.

This year’s atmospheric river struck on April 7-8, 2019, just as these dams were being filled for use as summer storage. While not at “max conservation pool” level (occurring around May 1), the dams were approaching their upper limits. Cougar Reservoir, for example, was at around 494 meters (1620 feet) before the storm and according to its operating curve, the reservoir should have been around 500 meters (1640 feet) (seen in the graph to the right, reservoir levels are measured by elevation to sea level, not depth). After April 12, 2019, the South Fork of the Willamette River discharged between 3,000 and 5,000 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) compared to its typical average of about 400-800 cfs at this time. (https://on.doi.gov/2Izcf5n). By April 13, 2019, Cougar Reservoir levels had shot up to nearly 515 meters (1690 feet), the maximum summer flood control level shown in the regulation curve above, several weeks early. By releasing record volumes of water from these dams, and using up any remaining storage capacity still available, the Corp prevented overtopping of the dams at the cost of downstream riparian landowners.

Water releases over this period prevented an overflow, but opens the question of whether more flood control space may be required for spring storms in the future. When the reservoirs are full late in the season, the Corp has little choice but to open the gates, flooding downstream homes, farms, and cities. Calls for changing the Corp’s dam regulation curves may also come alongside the calls to reallocate stored water, adding even more controversy for the Willamette Valley Project near its 50^th birthday.

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

While the negotiation of U.S. international treaties has been in the news lately, the renegotiation of an international treaty of particular importance to the Pacific Northwest has not received much coverage. However, May 29-30, 2018 marked the first round of negotiations between the U.S. and Canada in the effort to renegotiate the Columbia River Treaty.

Notably, May 30, 2018 also marked the 70th anniversary of the historic Vanport flood that wiped out a town of approximately 18,000 residents situated between Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington.[1] On that day in 1948, the Columbia River crested at Portland to fifteen feet above its flood plain and breached the embankment protecting Vanport, which just years earlier was Oregon’s second largest town.[2] While the town of Vanport no longer exists, one of the many legacies of the devastating flood is the Columbia River Treaty and its flood control provisions.

 A Columbia River Treaty between the U.S. and Canada was seriously considered beginning in 1944, but it was not until 1960 that the U.S. and Canada began negotiating the Treaty, which was signed in 1961 and took effect in 1964. The Treaty has no specific end date, but 2024 is the earliest either party may terminate the Treaty and to do so, the party must provide a minimum of 10 years written notice of termination.

The impetus for renegotiating now is that the assured annual flood control procedures in the Treaty will end after 2024 whether or not the Treaty is terminated.[3] After 2024, on-call flood control measures will apply requiring the U.S. to ask Canada to store water after the U.S. has used all available flood control space in U.S. reservoirs.[4] These on-call procedures have been referred to by Oregon and Washington’s Congressional Representatives Peter DeFazio and Cathy McMorris Rodgers as “ad hoc, unplanned” and with the likely potential to cause uncertainty and international disputes.[5]

The Canadian storage created by the Columbia River Treaty includes 15.5 million acre-feet of water in the upper reaches of the Columbia, including the storage behind Libby Dam, which sits near the U.S. and Canada border in Montana and created Lake Koocanusa, a reservoir that backs up 42 miles into British Columbia. While the U.S. benefits from the flood control measures, both countries realize a benefit from the power generated. However, the Treaty was not written specifically to provide water for irrigation or fish subsistence.[6]

Both Canada and the U.S. have spent recent years studying the effects of the Treaty and the various issues that will serve as levers in the negotiation to balance the current and future needs of both countries. These studies ultimately led both countries to consult with stakeholders in their regions and to issue regional recommendations that will serve as the basis for renegotiating the Treaty.[7]

While neither county has given notice of termination, the entities began renegotiating the Treaty on May 29-30, 2018. The next scheduled negotiation is August 15-16, 2018. [8] The renegotiation of the Columbia River Treaty will be important for Pacific Northwest irrigators and water users as the eventual revisions to the Treaty will likely: impact future reservoir storage, alter the timing of reservoir releases, take into account ecological and fish impacts of the Columbia River Power System, and effect utility rates for all electricity customers.

[1] Michael N. McGregor, The Vanport Flood, The Oregon History Project: Oregon Historical Society (Mar. 17, 2018) available at https://oregonhistoryproject.org/articles/essays/the-vanport-flood/#.WxhNxkgvyUm.

[2] Carl Abbott, Vanport, The Oregon Encyclopedia: Oregon Historical Society (Mar. 17, 2018) available at https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/vanport/#.WxhNwUgvyUn.

[3] Northwest Power & Conservation Council, Columbia River Treaty, available at https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/columbia-river-history/columbiarivertreaty.

[4] Id.

[5] Cathy McMorris Rodgers & Peter DeFazio, Modernizing our Columbia River Treaty, OregonLive (Mar. 14, 2018) available at http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/03/peter_defazio_modernizing_our.html#article.

[6] Columbia River Treaty.

[7] Id.

[8] U.S. Dept. of State, Press Release: On the Opening of Negotiations to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty Regime (May 30, 2018) available at https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/05/282867.htm.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a U.S. District Court opinion requiring the Army Corps of Engineers to increase spill at dams on the Federal Columbia River Power System (“FCRPS”) to the maximum spill levels that still meet total dissolved gas criteria allowed under state law. The increased spills required by the District Court’s order and affirmed by the Court of Appeals began on April 3, 2018. The Court of Appeals’ decision is available here.

The Court of Appeals’ decision in National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service is the most recent decision in this case, which has been ongoing since 2000. The decision stems from a challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (“NMFS”) 2014 Biological Opinion (“BiOp”) that concluded operation of the FCRPS dams would jeopardize salmon and steelhead species (“listed species”) listed under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Because NMFS’s BiOP concluded operation of the FCRPS dams would jeopardize the listed species, pursuant to NFMS responsibilities under the ESA, NFMS proposed an alternative action that included, among other measures, some spill over the FCRPS dams as a means to avoid jeopardizing the listed species.

However, in 2016 the District Court found NMFS’ violated the Endangered Species Act when NMFS concluded the alternative in the 2014 BiOp did not jeopardize the listed species. The District Court gave NMFS until March 1, 2018 to issue a new BiOp. (This deadline was later extended to December 31, 2018.) However, in January 2017, the plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief, requesting the District Court order additional spill at the maximum level from April through June at dams along the FCRPS. In April 2017, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ injunctions and ordered increased spills to take effect April 3, 2018. The District Court’s decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals issued its decision upholding the District Court’s order requiring increased spills on April 2, 2018, the day before the increased spills were to begin. The Court of Appeals found the District Court did not err under the ESA in finding the plaintiffs had shown the listed species would suffer irreparable harm sufficient to order the increased spill. Nor did the Court of Appeals find it error that the District Court analyzed the harm that would be caused to the listed species in operation of the FCRPS dams as a whole, rather than focusing only on the spill related components of the BiOp alternative NMFS selected.

As irrigation season begins in the areas of the Columbia and Snake Rivers that rely on the water flowing through the FCRPS, and as the increased spills begin to take effect, some congressional leaders in the affected states are attempting a congressional solution to negate the effects of the court decisions. House Bill 3144, introduced by Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) in June 2017, reported out of the House Committee on Natural Resources on April 11, 2018. It remains to be seen if and when H.R. 3144 may be scheduled to be heard on the floor of the House of Representatives; however, the Court of Appeals’ decision has, and any outcomes from H.R. 3144 will have, immediate impacts on water rates and utility rates for irrigators and residents throughout the Pacific Northwest. H.R. 3144 is available here.

(Photo: Lake Koocanusa, Libby, MT)

Hydropower relicensing and compliance has become a process of constant adaptation and engagement, both with regulatory agencies and with stakeholders. Both adaptation in the licensing and relicensing process and engagement early and frequently helps hydropower facilities better anticipate and adapt to a regulatory process that undergoes many changes in the life of a hydropower license and even in the multiple years (or decades) it can take for relicensing.

Common themes at the Northwest Hydroelectric Association Conference last week in Portland included the importance of engagement with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) when undertaking relicensing, even in pre-filing phases, to determine the scope of a facility’s study plan. This focus on engagement with FERC is largely driven by the Integrated Licensing Process that requires more pre-filing consultation and involvement with FERC and other resource agencies and stakeholders, such as Indian Tribes, rather than the Traditional Licensing Approach in which review and consultation are a sequential process.

Not only is engagement critical, and now required by FERC, but it helps hydropower projects better adapt to changing natural resource protection requirements during the relicensing process. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance continues to require extensive analysis in the pre-filing process to conduct scoping with FERC and the resource agencies. Throughout the regulatory workshop, participants emphasized that hydropower facilities’ staff can effectively manage issues, such as invasive species, and will have a better grasp of their license conditions to ensure compliance with and adaptability to license conditions once a license is issued if there is engagement.

In November 2017, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) published the Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study, Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment (Study). The purpose of the Study (which can be viewed in its entirety here) is to evaluate the reallocation of 1,590,000 acre-feet of Willamette Valley Project stored water. The Study analyzes current and future water demand in the Willamette basin to determine how the water should be reallocated. The analyzed demand uses include agricultural irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, and conservation storage for Endangered Species Act listed fish. 

The Corps constructed a series of thirteen federal reservoirs in the middle and upper Willamette Basin beginning in the 1930s. Currently, the water is stored under Bureau of Reclamation water use rights that authorize storage for irrigation. The Corps’ proposal would reallocate 962,800 acre-feet of water to fish and wildlife. This discrete category has been allocated the most water in the draft Study, followed by agricultural irrigation at 253,950 acre-feet, and municipal and industrial with the least at 73,300 acre-feet.

For those keeping score at home, those figures do not add up to the allocated 1,590,000 acre-feet. The Corps chose to earmark 299,950 acre-feet to what the agency is classifying as “joint-use.” Joint use allocation is water that can be assigned to any of the other three discrete categories. Thus, the Corps would simply hold that amount in reserve to accommodate “unforeseeable changes to demand trends.” Simply put, this provides the Corps flexibility in the future to disperse water according to demand while simultaneously allowing the agency to avoid allocating all of the water at the current time.

While everyone can agree more water available for appropriation is a good thing, some are unhappy about the way the Corps has proposed to allocate stored water. The Capital Press reported the Oregon Farm Bureau’s position is that water allocated to agricultural irrigation is “not nearly enough.” 

There is still much uncertainty about what will happen next and how long the process will take before water stored in the Willamette Valley Project is available for appropriation. The Study is currently a draft environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Therefore, the Corps is still in the stage where it is developing and evaluating the alternatives. The comment period on the draft Study closed on January 5, 2018.

If the Corps finds no significant impact from the chosen alternative action in the NEPA process, water will then need to be reallocated to the proposed uses. Because the Bureau of Reclamation currently holds the water right certificates that authorize storage for irrigation, the federal agencies must go through the Oregon Water Resources Department’s transfer review process to change the purposes of use for the Project storage rights.

Only after the water use rights authorizing storage in the Project are transferred to the reallocated uses will the water be available for new appropriations in addition to the current authorized use, irrigation. The reallocation could stimulate a rush to the Oregon Water Resources Department’s office for application submission. As the old adage goes, “the early-bird gets the worm.” More aptly, those ready to file for a water right upon the successful completion of the impending process are more likely to get to obtain a much-coveted water use right from the reallocated storage.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog as this process unfolds!

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Derek Gauthier, a student at Lewis & Clark Law School.

In February 2017, the town of Oroville, California was in for quite the surprise! Butte County Sherriff’s Office issued a mandatory evacuation notice as the full reservoir (Oroville Lake) above Oroville threatened to wash out residents. The reservoir’s dam spillways were severely damaged by increased water flow caused by the seemingly unceasing rains. Now the question is when will it be fixed, and what happens next?

Many residents have noticed the hustle and bustle of workers and heavy machinery at the Oroville Dam and are wondering what is actually going on.  Rumors abound. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, some say the work must be a secret effort to mine undiscovered gold, or some suspect a missile is taking shape…not a new spillway. Regardless of what the rumor mill might be stirring, one question is on everyone’s mind – Will it be done in time for the winter and spring rains in 2018?

Officials say that they want the spillways to be operational by November 1^st, 2017 in case the lake fills up by then. Final touches, on the other hand, will have to wait until next summer. Some residents fear that the work is only a patch job and not a permanent fix, and skeptics are not going to wait around to be proven right or wrong.

One thing is for sure, the California Department of Water Resources is required to make sure that the dam is safe before it is fully operational. Arguably, residents should receive assurance of that the dam is safe before the 2018 rains hit and the lake fills up.

In the meantime, assignment of blame for the 2017 disaster continues. State officials are investigating the spillways and looking into the possibility that poor management is to blame for their damage. One official says that he expects the team’s findings to have implications for other dams in California, and beyond.

The Nevada State Engineer is working on a plan to define how to conjunctively manage Humboldt River Decreed water rights hydrologically connected with groundwater rights. This plan will take form through an administrative rulemaking process and will affect many water right holders in and around the Humboldt River Corridor. Nevada Farm Bureau is assisting the State Engineer in setting up informational meetings to discuss concepts in forming the regulatory plan and to obtain feedback on the plan’s economic impacts to small business, farms and ranches.

Currently the United States Geological Survey (“USGS”) and the Desert Research Institute (“DRI”) have a four-year study in the 34 groundwater basins that adjoin the Humboldt River Corridor. The results from the study will determine which individual groundwater wells are hydrologically connected to the surface water flows of the Humboldt River, and to what extent their connection impacts surface flows. Armed with this information, the Conjunctive Management Plan aims to apply annual financial assessments to be paid by each injurious groundwater well in an attempt to recompense senior surface water right owners for their loss of water.

The State Engineer’s preliminary draft regulations for conjunctive management identify the purpose of the regulations as a means to establish rules for a Mitigation Program for the Humboldt River and tributaries identified in the Humboldt River Decree and hydrologically connected groundwater. The plan will establish rules for mitigating conflicts through water replacement or other mitigation measures. The plan will identify water rights of use that are subject to or exempt from plan regulation. The draft regulations identify affected parties as any holder of water rights under the Humboldt River Decree, groundwater right holders whose pumping is determined to capture at least one percent of any Humboldt River Decreed water right, and mining projects whose mine pit lakes capture at least one percent of any decreed surface right and holders of storage water in Rye Patch Reservoir.

The preliminary draft regulations state that the percentage of capture will be initially determined by the USGS/DRI study and thereafter by any further study found suitable by the State Engineer. The State Engineer will determine the amount of conflict to each surface water right and the amount of injurious depletion by groundwater rights, measured in acre-feet, for use in establishing and enforcing the Mitigation Program. The Mitigation Program will be mandatory for all groundwater users determined to be injurious to senior surface water right users. Administration of the program will be funded through existing groundwater and surface water assessments, and the program itself will be funded by groundwater right holders or responsible parties of mining projects, based on their injurious depletions.

The preliminary draft regulations offer regulated groundwater users an alternative to the Mitigation Program by working with the State Engineer to obtain an approved water replacement plan or other type of mitigation plan. If a groundwater right holder fails to participate in the Mitigation Program or have an alternative mitigation plan approved by the State Engineer, that water right holder will be prohibited from diverting any groundwater until the injurious depletion is mitigated and may be subject to penalties and fines.

If you would like to learn more about the draft Regulations for the Conjunctive Management of the Humboldt River Basin, or would like to offer feedback concerning potential economic impacts imposed by the regulations or Mitigation Plan to small businesses, you are encouraged to attend one of the following informational meetings.

Monday, July 17, 2017: 6:30 PM at the Lovelock Community Center in Lovelock Nevada;
Tuesday, July 18, 2017: 6:30 PM at the Humboldt County Cooperative Extension Office in Winnemucca Nevada;
Wednesday, July 19, 2017: 6:30 PM at the Battle Mountain Civic Center in Battle Mountain Nevada; and
Thursday, July 20, 2017: 6:30 PM at the Elko County Conference Center in Elko Nevada.

Schroeder Law Offices plays some serious water games, and so should you! Serious gaming is an emerging tool in negotiation, mediation, and water conflict. Serious water gaming acts is a way to share knowledge, interact in an engaging way, and build capacity to solve the real problems in water resources. The games allow for role-playing for social learning in a less-threatening environment. Parties that might otherwise be unable to cooperate build capacity, relationships, and deescalate tensions, at least momentary. Careful reflection after the game concludes provides lessons that can be applied to the real-life problems. When we aren’t helping you with your real-life water issues, we are honing our water gaming skills.

The United States Army Corp of Engineers has started playing too! They have built a dam-based game resembling the way the agency balances water needs for agriculture, flood control, habitat, water quality, and hydropower. The “River Basin Balancer Game” is available for free at: http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Dam-and-Lake-Projects/Missouri-River-Dams/Basin-Balancer/

The United Nations plays “Aqua Republica.” This game simulates the demands placed on water managers, balancing food, energy, and wildlife. The game includes social revolts, population increases, and economic impacts. There are multiple versions available representing different regions. Choices of crops, environmental policies, and irrigation technology all influence the player’s success. To begin playing for free, follow this link to the registration menu: http://capnet.aquarepublica.com/register

For those that enjoy board games, the California Water Crisis Game pits the three regions of California against each other in a competition for water, but also reputation! Different stages of water law are represented, including the Gold Rush era and today’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. (See our blog post on the Act here: https://www.water-law.com/california-will-have-regulations-on-groundwater-pumping/) More information is available here: http://www.californiarailmap.com/cawater

Schroeder Law Offices will be developing its own game to show the kinds of legal problems you could encounter with your water issues! For more information and games, see Dr. Todd Jarvis’s blog at http://rainbowwatercoalition.blogspot.com/2016/04/serious-gaming-in-water.html and the upcoming paper titled “Serious Water Gaming” by Shelby Hockaday, Todd Jarvis, and Fatima Taha.

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

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Jakob Wiley, a concurrent student at Oregon State University’s Water Resources Policy and Management graduate program and a law student at the University of Oregon School of Law.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration, and the Bureau of Reclamation (“federal agencies”) are engaged in a five year process to analyze the effects of the Federal Columbia River Power System on salmonid species. In May 2016, District Court Judge Michael Simon found the federal agencies had violated the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.[1] Specifically, Judge Simon said the federal agencies erred in failing to manage the Federal Columbia River Power System with strategies beyond the hydro-mitigation efforts that failed in the past.

Therefore, the Judge ordered the federal agencies to develop a new biological opinion to address: 1) mitigation measures to avoid jeopardy to salmonid species; 2) development of a Biological Opinion that complies with the Endangered Species Act; and 3) development of an Environmental Impact Statement that complies with the National Environmental Policy Act and addresses the impact of the Snake River dams on salmonid species. In his opinion, Judge Simon suggested a proper analysis should include considering breaching, bypassing, or removing the Lower Snake River dams.

The federal agencies will hold public scoping meetings around Washington, Idaho, and Oregon in the next weeks, in addition to two webinars.[2] Written comments will also be accepted until January 17, 2017. The meetings will be held from 4-7 PM as follows:

• November 29th, Boise, Idaho
• December 1st, Seattle, Washington
• December 6th, The Dalles, Oregon
• December 7th, Portland, Oregon
• December 8th, Astoria, Oregon

The scoping meetings are an important way for stakeholders to help the federal agencies narrow the issues and focus on key concerns. After the time period for the scoping meetings, the federal agencies will prepare a draft environmental impact statement that will be available for public comment.[3] The federal agencies must respond to all substantive comments on the draft environmental impact statement.

It is recommended that parties interested in the outcome of the federal agencies’ decision attend a scoping meeting and make comments. If an interested party later wants to challenge the federal agencies’ decision that a certain alternative should have been analyzed in the NEPA document, the court may not hear the concern.

Written comments may be made in person at one of the scoping meetings, submitted via mail, via email, or through the federal agencies’ online portal. Information about how to submit such comments is available at www.crso.info. 

[1] Nat’l Wildlife Federation v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59195 (D. Or. 2016).

[2] www.crso.info

[3] 40 C.F.R § 1502.9

Last month, attorney Sarah Liljefelt organized a tour of the Whooshh Innovations fish passage structure constructed for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on the Washougal River. Members of the Oregon State Bar Environmental and Natural Resources Section attended, including attorneys in private practice, working for the State of Oregon, and public interest.

Whooshh has patented new technology that propels fish through a rubber tube fish canon from one location to another in mere seconds, be the end result a truck to haul fish, or to the other side of a dam as a new type of fish passage. Studies have shown that stress on the fish is lesser in the Whooshh system than traditional fish passage, and the cost is only a fraction of renovating a dam for traditional fish passage.

Check out videos of the Whooshh system (and fish flying through the system) at Whooshh’s website: http://www.whooshh.com/.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog for more news!

On April 6, 2016, amendments to the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the new Klamath Power and Facilities Agreement (KPFA) were signed at a ceremony at the mouth of the Klamath River on the Yurok Indian Reservation. These changes come in the wake of the Congress’s decision not to pass legislation for the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). Negotiations between the signatories of the new agreements in the Klamath Basin were kept secret, the results of their discussions can be seen in these new agreements, available at: https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/Pages/adj/index.aspx.

The amended KHSA’s purpose is to establish a process for removal of Iron Gate, Copco 1, Copco 2 and J.C. Boyle dams under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions relicensing procedures. The decision to remove the dams was made based on a cost-benefit analysis that was not released to the public. The amended agreement will also shield PacificCorp and its customers from liability for damages associated with dam removal. The amended agreement transfers the ownership of the dams to the Klamath River Renewal Corporation. The new corporation will conduct the dam removal, while PacificCorp will operate the dams until their decommissioning. The dams are expected to be removed in 2020. The U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Commerce, California and Oregon States, and PacificCorp were parties to the agreement.

The KPFA is an agreement designed to mitigate economic and regulatory issues facing users of water and land in the Klamath Basin. Oregon and California States, the Klamath Water Users Association, public interest groups (including American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, and Sustainable Northwest), the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the National Marine Fisheries Service were parties to the agreement. The KPFA stipulates that the signing parties must meet and confer when there is an unforeseen circumstance related to the fishery restoration and regulatory impacts on the local economy. It also obligates the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (“BOR”), upon transfer of the operation of Link River and Keno Dams, to operate the dams without adding any associated costs to water users for the maintenance of infrastructure. The BOR will operate those dams consistent with existing contracts for irrigation and flood control, and attempt to prevent salmon from entering irrigation canals and ditches. Funding for projects preventing salmon entry into irrigation infrastructure will come from a variety of sources, including irrigation districts, federal, state, and private parties. The agreement also requires the signing parties to support and defend the KHSA, refrain from making statements in opposition to the KHSA, and support the KHSA in administrative and judicial forums. Notably, representatives of the local landowners that will be affected were not included in negotiations, and are not signatories to the agreement.

In short, after many years of receiving a clear message from Congress that it was not going to fund the KBRA’s dam removal plan, the proponents are moving forward without Congress’s approval, or the approval of the local residents that will be most affected. Rather than retrofit the dams to allow fish passage and other updates, the negotiating parties are removing the dams. Along with the dams, the negotiating parties are doing away with inexpensive power, jobs, and water storage for increased reliability within the basin, in a proverbial “flushing the baby with the bathwater” situation. It remains to be seen how severe the impacts from dam removal will be on top of the other stresses that the Klamath Basin has suffered since the administrative phase of the Klamath Basin Adjudication was completed, and since the region has suffered from severe drought for several years.

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

This article was drafted with the assistance of Law Clerk Jakob Wiley, a concurrent student at Oregon State University’s Water Resources Policy and Management graduate program and a law student at the University of Oregon School of Law.

Congress has adjourned for the year without passing a bill to authorize and fund the Klamath Agreements. The Klamath Basin agreements include: the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (“KHSA”), Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (“KBRA”) and Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement (“UKBCA”) that together lay out a comprehensive scheme for changes in management along the entire reach of the Klamath River. After years of litigation and negotiation, certain stakeholder groups came together to craft the trio of agreements. However, the agreements did not sit well with everyone. Particularly those in Klamath County and their California neighbors due primarily to the highly controversial dam removal provisions and drying up thousands of acres of farmland. For these among other reasons, the agreements, which required authorizing legislation and funding from Congress, failed to gain traction.

Senator Ron Wyden [D-OR] attempted multiple times to pass the necessary legislation to authorize the agreements. The latest version, the Klamath Basin Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act of 2015, has been stalled in committee since last January (2015). In an effort to move forward, on December 3, 2015, Representative Greg Walden [R-OR] released a draft bill intended to “help provide water and power certainty for agriculture and boost economic development and job creation for rural communities and tribes through a transfer of federal timber lands.” Walden’s draft bill omitted dam removal and authorized transferring up to 100,000 acres each of National Forest land to Klamath County, OR, and Siskiyou County, CA. These issues quickly became non-starters for the Tribes who held the “ears” of Senators Wyden and Merkley.

The KHSA is set to expire on January 1, 2016. While the parties can vote to extend it, some signatories are beginning to question if the agreements provide workable solutions for the Klamath basin. The Yurok Tribe clearly communicated its intent to terminate the agreement. Similarly, the Klamath Tribal Council has issued a dispute notice. Additionally, PacifiCorp, the company that owns the dams, has changed course and now indicates it will pursue re-licensing of the dams. Thus, many parties that initially favored the agreements are beginning to show their discontent. This may have been another reason authorizing legislation had difficulty making its ways through Congress.

In March of 2015, The Oregon Water Resources Department passed administrative rules, Oregon Administrative Rules 690-025, to help govern the region in accordance with the Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement in anticipation of the agreement being authorized by Congress. The rules implement sections of the agreement to address control of well use in off-project areas when that use affects surface water supplies in the basin. However, these rules will no longer be effective once the agreement terminates, and groundwater regulation in the off-project area will again be in accordance with OAR 690-009.

As such, for better or worse, it appears the agreements will dissolve as portions of the agreements expire in the New Year. Thus, 2016 will likely involve the parties initiating new negotiations to resolve the critical water usage issues in the Klamath basin, potentially leading them back to court to resolve exceptions filed in the Klamath Basin Adjudication as that process is slated to continue through the coming year or years.

Photo: Rain – Klamath Basin Wildlife Refuge by Michael “Moik” McCllough

By Lynn Steyaert and Laura Schroeder

As a result of concerns relating to failures of unpermitted dams, the Department of Ecology issued notice that owners of small reservoirs built without permits must report their dams for safety inspections by September 1, 2008 or face possible fines.  Following an inspection, owners may be required to hire an engineer to provide recommendations on how to bring facilities up to safety standards.

To reduce the possibility of dam breaches that create hazards for people and property downstream, the department has been scanning aerial photographs statewide to locate existing un-permitted reservoirs that are two acres or more that may hold 10 acre-feet of water or more.  Under RCW 90.03.350, the Department is responsible for regulating water reservoirs capable of storing 10 acre-feet or more above ground level for any use. As of August 4, 2008, the Department reported having spotted 594 un-permitted dams of two acres or more, with 244 of those appearing to be high hazard dams.

Owners, who fail to report their reservoirs, obtain needed state permits, and correct deficiencies, may face fines of up to $5,000 per day.  The Department may also order dangerous reservoirs be drained and dams removed.  The Department further recommends that even those reservoirs not requiring a permit, should be designed by licensed engineers and inspected periodically, as the owner may be liable for property damage if their dam were to fail.