The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) seeks public comments to its Draft Water Quality Integrated report. The public comment period for Nevada’s 2020-2022 Draft Water Quality Integrated Report closes on December 31, 2021. On November 22, 2021, NDEP published its Public Notice, inviting comment on the Draft Nevada 2020-2022 Water Quality Integrated Report. The report was prepared in accordance with the Clean Water Act, §§ 303(d), 305(b), and 314. The Clean Water Act requires NDEP to conduct a comprehensive analysis of water quality data associated with Nevada’s surface waters.

The report is a combination of the biennial reporting requirements under the Clean Water Act § 303 on impaired waters, and § 305 for an overall assessment of surface water quality within Nevada and a description of how current conditions provide for the protection of beneficial uses of the state’s waters.  The 2020 and 2022 assessment periods were combined into one report, as is the standard practice in Nevada. Thus, the report covers a data collection period of over seven-years. 

Data on Nevada’s rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs was collected from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2020 and was evaluated to determine if State water quality standards are being met and beneficial uses are supported. These periodic reports are used by the public, other entities, and NDEP for water quality management planning purposes.

Impaired Water Reporting Requirements

Under its Clean Water Act § 303 reporting requirements, NDEP has produced a list of waters where current pollution control technologies alone cannot meet the water quality standards set for that water body. The list also contains water bodies that may soon become impaired. Impaired waters are prioritized base on the severity of the pollution and the designated use of the water body (e.g. fish propagation or recreation).  NDEP will also develop total maximum daily loads or TMDLs of pollutants in the impaired water bodies. These TMDLs designate the maximum concentration of each pollutant allowed in the water body and will help guide NDEP water resource management decision in an attempt to improve impaired waters.

Public Comment

The Draft Nevada 2020-2021 Water Quality Integrated Report is available at:

https://ndep.nv.gov/water/rivers-streams-lakes/water-quality-standards/303d-305b-water-quality-integrated-report

Links to the 2016-2018 Water Quality Integrated Report and examples of its public comments can also be found at the link above.

The public comment period for the Draft Nevada 2020-2021 Water Quality Integrated Report closes on December 31, 2021 at 5:00 PM. Any comments should be submitted by mail or email to:

Dave Simpson
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Planning 
901 S. Stewart St.
Carson City, NV 89701
dsimpson@ndep.nv.gov

What’s Next?

Once the report is submitted, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must notify NDEP of its approval or disapproval of the § 303 impaired waters list within thirty (30) days. If the list and associated TMDLs are approved, NDEP will incorporate them into its plan.  If they are disapproved, the burden shifts to EPA to identify impaired waters and determine the TMDLs necessary to implement the water quality standards applicable to each water. This must be completed by EPA in thirty days.  After such identification, if necessary, NDEP will then incorporate EPA’s § 303 list into its water quality plan.

The next biennial report will be drafted in 2023 with an opportunity to submit public comment on the draft report prior to submission. Watch for our blog about it here.

(Photo Credit: https://www.visitlaughlin.com/listing/colorado-river/36922/)

This post is one of a series highlighting the ways in which water users have adapted to life in the time of COVID-19.

Shelley Roberts is the CEO of the Idaho Rural Water Association (“IRWA”). IRWA is a resource for small water systems in the State of Idaho that offers training for drinking water and wastewater operators and aids those systems in times of need. Their objective is “to ensure Idaho’s rural communities are safe while still maintaining the high quality of life we hold so dear.”

For Shelley, the best part of working with IRWA has been the same since day one. As someone with a business background, she loves being able to utilize her education by running a non-profit corporation benefiting others. “I’ve never met such salt of the earth people as I have in the water industry,” she says. “They are all so genuine, caring, and kind.”

COVID-19’s impact on IRWA started during its Spring Conference in March, 2020, which concluded on Friday, March 13- the same day the Federal Government declared a state of emergency. The following Monday, all of IRWA’s administrative staff were directed to stay home. The week after, IRWA organized a work from home policy that allowed employees to perform their duties remotely. For IRWA’s circuit riders, though, it was a different story.

Drinking water and wastewater are essential services, and adjustments had to be made to ensure they continued to run smoothly. IRWA employs numerous circuit riders and field staff whose jobs require in-person and onsite contact with water system operators. However, thanks to video conferencing technology, much of their communications with the operators could be conducted remotely, limiting potential exposure. When site visits were required, field staff practiced social distancing as much as possible, including staying 6 feet apart and wearing face masks.

An unexpected benefit of remote work was an increased ability not only to contact the systems but for internal communication between IRWA’s employees, office and field staff alike. “We learned how to use Teams and started having weekly video conferences,” Shelly told us. “We weren’t able to do that before. It was nice for everyone [at IRWA] to have more contact with each other.”

According to Shelley, one of the biggest impacts COVID-19 had was fear of “what ifs.” The ability to communicate with water systems in remote locations without having to travel allowed the circuit riders to discuss those concerns quickly and determine what steps were needed to resolve any issues.

Another of IRWA’s major concerns was operator availability. Many of the small systems IRWA works with are operated by volunteers who have other commitments to day jobs and families. Should those operators fall ill or otherwise become unable to perform their duties, it can be difficult to find other operators to fill in.

IRWA has long worked with the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to locally administer the water/wastewater agency response network, otherwise known as WARN. In response, through WARN, IRWA was able to put together a list of volunteers who could assist if a system’s regular operator was not available.

Shelley says that IRWA’s response to COVID-19 did not greatly differ from their response to other emergencies in which the first step is typically outreach and communication with the systems IRWA works with. For example, on March 21, 2020, a magnitude 6.5 earthquake struck central Idaho. Circuit riders needed immediate contact with water systems to assess any potential damage caused by the quake. Luckily, the remote communication procedures implemented in response to COVID-19 allowed IRWA’s circuit riders to easily check in with system operators.

While the pandemic continues to impact daily life and operations for IRWA in general and Shelley personally, she looks forward to life after COVID-19. Professionally, she awaits opening up the new training center in Boise, Idaho IRWA constructed just prior to the shutdown. The center will host hands-on trainings for water and wastewater operators in addition to traditional classroom training. As for her personally? Being able to hug her friends and extended family.

Shelley participated in a panel discussion on the pandemic’s impact on the Idaho water sector as a part of the Idaho Association of Cities’ 2020 virtual conference, which you can watch in full here. For more information about IRWA, including details for upcoming trainings, check out their website here. And stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ blog for more posts in this series and other water-related issues!

The State of the Water Industry Survey

In the June 2020 issue of Opflow, the American Water Works Association published a survey of 3,351 water industry professionals. The State of the Water Industry (SOTWI) survey identifies challenges to the water industry and seeks to understand their causes.

Several issues regarding water resource management made the top ten concerns of the industry professionals surveyed. “Long-term water supply availability” was the third-highest ranked issue on the list at #3, followed closely by “watershed/source water protection” (#5) and “groundwater management and over-use’ (#10).

Water Demand

Specifically, 57 percent of surveyed respondents indicated that their utilities could meet anticipated long-term water demand. However, about 12 percent of respondents claim that it will be challenging to meet future supply needs. This uncertainty creates reverberating effects throughout the industry. Uncertainty affects many other aspects of water resource management and quality, including the other issues mentioned in the survey. Future supply shortfalls will lead to increased price and competition as well as the potential for more frequent litigation over water rights.

Source Water Protection

In addition, source water protection was another critical issue for water resource managers. 76 percent of utility respondents to the survey said that they had implemented or were implementing a source water protection program. When considering only large utility respondents, that share increased to 89 percent. Clearly, utilities focus on strong source water protection programs. These programs are often cost-effective ways to protect and improve both water quality and quantity. Further, states are generally responsible for implementing water quality standards under the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts for drinking water. Recently, the AWIA, America’s Water Infrastructure Act amended the Safe Drinking Water Act, signed into law in 2018.

Groundwater

Finally, this was the second consecutive year that groundwater issues were front and center in the survey. 2019 California drought and wildfire conditions stressed groundwater resources, bringing those issues to the front of many survey respondents’ minds. Those issues show no signs of abating, as drought and wildfires continue to ravage the West.

In conclusion, many of the challenges highlighted by survey respondents are similar to those faced by water resource managers throughout the years. While there may be some cause for concern in certain areas, overall the survey shows a positive outlook for the future. Utilities are using existing water resources more efficiently as they comply with the AWIA, protect their water sources, and engage in asset management planning. The water industry has poised itself to meet its challenges with resilience.

This blog was drafted with the assistance of Drew Hancherick, a current law student attending Lewis and Clark Law School.

April 22, 2020 is the 50^th anniversary of the first Earth Day, a global holiday that unites citizens of the Earth to take better care of our planet.

Earth Day was initially proposed by Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson as a way to bring awareness to ongoing ecological issues and concerns. It took place on April 22, 1970 with a series of “teach-ins” on college campuses across America. It then gained national attention and momentum. The first Earth Day inspired the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It also lead to the passage of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts along with numerous other environmental laws and regulations.

The next Earth Day did not take place until April 22, 1990. Numerous corporations and celebrities endorsed the holiday, and over 200 million people worldwide came together to celebrate. Now Earth Day is an annual event observed around the world. It continues to inspire rallies, cleanup projects, and volunteer efforts. It also provides an opportunity to bring awareness to ongoing and ever-evolving environmental issues like climate change, pollution, and deforestation.

Earth Day is often celebrated outdoors in large groups. Community members gather to perform services such as picking up litter or planting trees. Many others participate in marches or protests about ways we can minimize our impact on the planet and improve global environmental health. However, given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and need for social distancing, Earth Day 2020 is a little different. The majority of events are taking place online rather than outside. Still, there are plenty of ways to celebrate. 

While outdoor community gatherings are largely cancelled this year, countless digital resources and events are taking place to make the 50^th anniversary memorable and impactful. Earth Day’s official website has an interactive map with links to events happening virtually all around the United States and the globe. This means you can participate in events in your community, on the other side of the country, or anywhere on the planet!

Of course, April 22^nd isn’t the only day to celebrate the Earth. The National Ocean Service has a list of 10 simple things you can do every day to protect and improve our planet in the short- and long-term. These steps are also laid out in their handy infographic below.

At Schroeder Law Offices, we try to celebrate Earth Day every day. To learn more about what we do and about all things water, check out our Schroeder Law Offices blog!

Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers announced the repeal of the 2015 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. The controversial 2015 rule incorporated changes to 1986 and 1988 regulations and incorporated the “significant nexus” standard articulated by Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S.  715 (2006).  The 2015 change occurred through the addition of the defined term “neighboring” which broadened the interpretation of “adjacent” waters (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/29/2015-13435/clean-water-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states at 37105).

The 2015 rule was the subject of numerous lawsuits and had been found illegal by five federal courts including: (1) the District Court for the District of North Dakota; (2) the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia; (3) the District Court for the Southern District of Texas; (4) the District Court for the District of Oregon; and (5) the District Court for the District of Ohio. With the repeal of the 2015 rule, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will reinstate the 1986 and 1988 regulations in the interim while a new rule is promulgated. These regulations are encompassed in: 33 C.F.R. 328; 40 C.F.R. 110; 40 C.F.R. 112; 40 C.F.R. 116; 40 C.F.R. 117; 40 C.F.R. 122, 40 C.F.R. 230; 40 C.F.R. 232; 40 C.F.R. 300; 40 C.F.R. 302; and 40 C.F.R. 400. 

The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers cited four primarily reasons for repealing the 2015 rule:

1. The rule did not implement the legal limits on the scope of agency authority under the Clean Water Act as intended by Congress and reflected by Supreme Court Cases, including Rapanos;
2. The rule failed to adequately consider and accord due weight to Congressional policy in the Clean Water Act § 101(b) to “recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution” and “to plan the development and use . . .of land and water resources.” 33 U.S.C. 125(b);
3. The rule led agencies to interpret the rule in a way that pushed the limits of agency constitutional and statutory authority absent a clear statement from Congress, authorizing the encroachment of federal jurisdiction over traditional State land use planning authority; and
4. The distance-based limitations in the rule suffered procedural errors and lacked adequate support in the record.

With the repeal of the 2015 rule came the filing of lawsuits attacking the constitutionality of the 1986 and 1988 regulations. On the same day as the repeal was announced, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a Complaint on behalf of the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association challenging the reversal and the allegedly even broader interpretation of WOTUS employed under the 1986 and 1988 rules (https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/epa-sued-for-relying-on-illegal-rules-following-wotus-repeal/). The Complaint can be found at: https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/nm_cattle_growers_v_epa_complaint.pdf.

In contrast, a group of eleven environmental organizations filed a law suit in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina challenging the 2015 rule’s repeal based on allegations that it “strips away crucial clean water protections from rivers, lakes, streams, and other waters that feed drinking-water sources for 200 Million Americans” (https://defenders.org/newsroom/conservation-groups-challenge-repeal-of-clean-water-act-protections-federal-court).  In light of these seemingly opposite claims, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will certainly suffer attacks from all sides as they attempt to establish a clear and implementable regulatory definition of WOTUS that better effectuates the language, structure, and purpose of the Clean Water Act.  

The repeal of the 2015 rule was published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2019 and can be found at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-22/pdf/2019-20550.pdf.

(Photo Credit: https://www.tva.gov/Environment/Managing-the-River)

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.

In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) issued a joint administrative rule, the “WOTUS Rule,” attempting to define the statutory term “waters of the United States” within the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) in order to more clearly define the agencies’ jurisdiction. Schroeder Law Offices summarized the background and scope of the WOTUS Rule in a 2015 blog. The WOTUS Rule was stayed in 2015. Three year later, and after a ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States, litigation over the WOTUS Rule continues. 

On January 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion, written by Justice Sotomayor, which settled the jurisdictional question of where challenges to the WOTUS Rule must be filed. The Court held that challenges to the WOTUS Rule must occur in federal district court rather than courts of appeals. The case was remanded to the Sixth Circuit and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This decision by the Supreme Court will likely prolong litigation on the merits of the WOTUS Rule because a decision by a district court for either party is likely to be appealed. Environmentalists have applauded the proposed changes in the rule, while coalitions like the American Farm Bureau Federation and American Petroleum Institute have said the rule will stifle economic growth and add burdensome regulation on farmers and business owners because of expansion of CWA jurisdiction.

On July 27, 2017 the EPA and Corps published a notice of a new proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register. The agencies proposed to replace the stayed 2015 WOTUS Rule with their pre-2015 regulatory procedure. The agencies solicited public comment on the proposed procedure, although, making clear they did not seek public comment on the substance of the pre-2015 rule.

On February 6, 2018, the agencies published the final rule in the Federal Register. The final rule suspends the applicability of the 2015 WOTUS Rule until February 6, 2020. The agencies assert that the suspension of the rule gives agencies the time needed to reconsider the regulatory definition of “waters of the United States.” As reported by Capital Press, the same day the agencies published their final rule a lawsuit was filed by the Attorneys General of New York, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia in the Southern District of New York. Another lawsuit was filed by numerous environmental groups in Charleston, South Carolina District Court. Both lawsuits challenge the two-year delay in applicability of the WOTUS Rule.

The attorneys general and environmental groups both take the same positions on two issues in their complaints. First, the parties allege the agencies failed to provide meaningful opportunity for public comment in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) because the agencies solicited comments solely on the procedure of the rule, proscribing comment on the substance of the pre-2015 rule. Second, the parties allege the agencies failed to consider all the relevant issues and offer a rational explanation for the suspension of applicability rule, another alleged violation of the APA.

The attorneys general and environmental groups differ in their last claim, however. The attorneys general claim that the CWA does not give the agencies authority to suspend the WOTUS Rule after its effective date passed. The environmental groups claim the agencies violated the APA by failing to publish the pre-2015 rule in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Stay tuned as Schroeder Law Offices brings you updates!

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

Co-Authored By: Attorney Therese Ure & Lisa Mae Gage

In August 2015 the United State Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) put their stamp of approval on the Waters of the United States (“WOTUS”) final rule. The WOTUS rule significantly expanded the definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, granting federal regulatory control over virtually all waters in the United States. Many groups opposed this rule, arguing that it expands federal jurisdiction, resulting in the imposition of burdensome requirements on agricultural producers.

On February 28, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Administrator of the EPA and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to review the WOTUS rule to ensure the nation’s navigable waters are protected, as well as to promote economic growth and show due regard for the roles of Congress and the States. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/28/presidential-executive-order-restoring-rule-law-federalism-and-economic.

President Trump also directed the administrators, along with the heads of all executive departments and agencies, to consider interpreting the term “navigable waters” as it is defined in 33 U.S.C. 1362(7), and consistent with the opinion of late Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Considering these interpretations, one might construe “navigable waters” as waters in the United States, including the territorial seas, that are “navigable in fact” or readily able of being so.

This executive order was preceded by a House Resolution . See https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/152/text. The Resolution states WOTUS should be withdrawn or vacated as the EPA and Corps did not follow proper procedural steps and claimed expansive jurisdiction that infringes upon State authority.

Several agricultural groups are strongly supporting the House Resolution and the Executive Order. As water is a valuable resource to all, regulation upon it must be closely scrutinized and controlled. According to the agricultural community, President Trump’s executive order and the House Resolution regarding WOTUS is a welcomed relief.

The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (“NDEP”) has been evaluating nonpoint source water pollution, occurring when rain, snowmelt and irrigated water flowing over developed land carries contaminants into Nevada waterways. Accordingly, NDEP implemented a Nonpoint Source Grant Program to provide funding to qualifying state, regional and county agencies, as well as conservation districts and nonprofit agencies. These programs aim to improve water quality, educate the public about nonpoint source pollution and to implement watershed improvement plans.

The NDEP reviewed requests for proposals (“RFP”) during 2016 and has selected 12 projects to award grant funding. The proposed plans will aim to reduce pollution impact from nonpoint sources. The funds originate from a US Environmental Protection Agency grant awarded by the Clean Water Act. Additional grant funding is expected to be awarded through a 2017 RFP process during 2017.

If you would like to learn more about the Grant Program, or to see a list of the projects that have been awarded grants for the 2016 year, please visit http://ndep.nv.gov/bwqp/file/319h_rfp/2016PojectsFunded.pdf.

On December 22, 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced funding of more than $19 Million for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects in Nevada. The program funds fall under Nevada’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and provides money for state projects that promote clean water through wastewater treatment projects and improvements to drinking water infrastructure in the State. The EPA’s Regional Administrator stated that “This substantial investment at the federal level helps communities develop the infrastructure needed for clean, safe drinking water and proper wastewater treatment. EPA is committed to protecting the water resources so important public health and Nevada’s economy.”

Funds supplied under the EPA program will go to provide financing for state projects such as upgrading septic systems to sewer, and renovations to wastewater treatment facilities to increase efficiency, as well as support projects for better and more efficient access to clean drinking water, such as water storage and water system upgrades. The funds this year will combine with over $200 Million in federal funding previously provided to Nevada’s Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund since the project began. While the EPA’s influence can at times be controversial, federal funding is important to State projects, where both municipal and agriculture interests can often benefit from the funds supplied for needed water projects.

More information on the topic can be found at the EPA Web Site.

On November 3, 2015, the United States Senate voted on legislation meant to repeal the federal regulation re-defining “Waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”). WOTUS sets EPA’s jurisdiction, and thereby how far the EPA can reach to regulate various waterways. The regulation increases federal jurisdiction over water within the United States, which many believe will increase federal oversight over certain water sources, especially that used for agriculture. The primary concern is that water use that was once exempt, will now fall under federal jurisdiction requiring new permitting and regulatory procedure, adding additional costs to use of this “jurisdictional” water. Through a bipartisan vote, with 57 senators voting for, and 41 against, the legislation failed to meet the 60 vote requirement, effectively scrapping the Bill.

On November 6, 2015, in a follow-up attempt to repeal with “WOTUS” Rule, Sen. Joni Ernst from Iowa sponsored a joint resolution of disapproval of the Rule. With the joint resolution passing in the Senate, Sen. Ernst stated, “Today’s passage to scrap the expanded WOTUS rule is a major win for our hardworking farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and small businesses who are continuously ignored by the EPA. It is abundantly clear that the WOTUS rule is ill-conceived and breeds uncertainty, confusion, and more red tape that threatens the livelihoods of many in Iowa and across the country.” The House will now consider the joint resolution, however, President Obama has expressed his intent to veto any law that seeks to repeal or alter the current WOTUS rule.

In the meantime, legal battles over WOTUS continue, as now more than 30 states have filed lawsuits against the EPA seeking to stay the Rule’s implementation. The effect of WOTUS remains stayed for a number of states until the EPA works through the legal challenges.

Update:

Since the November 6, 2015 vote by the United States Senate in support of a Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 22) to set aside the EPA’s new rule under the CWA concerning “Waters of the United States” on January 6, 2016, the United States House of Representatives equally voted in support of the Joint Resolution. This vote effectively sent the matter to the President, and as predicted, on January 19, 2016, President Obama vetoed the Joint Resolution, his ninth veto since taking office.

In the President’s press release regarding his veto of the Joint Resolution, he stated that, “The rule, which is a product of extensive public involvement and years of work, is critical to our efforts to protect the Nation’s waters and keep them clean, is responsive to calls for rulemaking from the Congress, industry, and community stakeholders, and is consistent with decisions of the United States Supreme Court.” President Obama went on to state that “Pollution from upstream sources ends up in the rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and coastal waters near which most Americans live and on which they depend for their drinking water, recreation, and economic development.”

Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa who sponsored the Resolution, stated in response that “This rule is not about clean water. Rather, it is about how much authority the federal government and unelected bureaucrats should have to regulate what is done on private land.”

The President’s veto, and the Rule’s implementation comes as a large regulatory hurdle many farmers and ranchers will have to navigate, with the potential for additional permitting and fees to operate in and around private water sources. While the Rule does exempt irrigation waters under certain circumstances, many questions remain as to the reach the Rule will have. While the Rule continues to be implemented, it remains stayed pending further Court action.

On June 29, 2015 the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a new rule under the Clean Water Act, re-defining “Waters of the United States,” and sought to expand federal jurisdiction over certain water sources. The new rule was set to go into effect on August 28, 2015. Due to the implications and potential effect the rule may have on private and public interests, numerous lawsuits were filed challenging the regulation. Primarily, a lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court of North Dakota, wherein thirteen states joined the lawsuit seeking to enjoin the rule’s implementation. On August 27, 2015, the North Dakota District Court issued an order granting the request for a preliminary injunction.

The thirteen states involved in the lawsuit include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. The EPA released a statement stating that “[u]nder the order issued by the District Court of North Dakota, the parties that obtained the preliminary injunction are not subject to the new rule, and instead continue to be subject to the prior regulation.” Therefore, until the Court rules on the issue, the EPA considers the injunction a bar to implementation of rule in Nevada, and the other thirteen states involved in the case.

For Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval’s response, please visit http://gov.nv.gov/News-and-Media/Press/2015/Sandoval-Encouraged-by-District-Court-Granting-Nevada_s-Request-for-Injunction/.

The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) have recently released a new waters of the United States rule under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) that has been in the works for over a year concerning the definition of what are the ‘Waters of the United States.’ The importance of this definition is that anything that is considered a water of the United States can be regulated under the CWA. The scope and effect of this rule are a point of considerable contention among stakeholders. Environmentalists have applauded the rule while industry-led coalitions, including the American Farm Bureau Federation and American Petroleum Institute, have said the rule will stifle economic growth and is overly burdensome on farmers and business owners. Within the Federal Government itself Republican lawmakers have classified the rule as a power grab by the Obama Administration. The joint EPA and USACE press release, however, described the rule as providing clarity as to which waters are governed by the CWA, and that this rule will help alleviate confusion generated by Supreme Court rulings handed down in 2001 and 2006.

The two Supreme Court rulings in question are Rapanos v. Unites States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001). In SWANCC the Court held that the Federal Government could not invoke the migratory bird rule as the reason why it could regulate isolated waters; this is the first case where the Court focused in on whether or not their existed a “significant nexus” between waters attempting to be regulated and navigable waterways. Meanwhile in Rapanos the Court issued a split decision regarding what may constitute ‘waters of the United States’ for the purposes of invoking CWA jurisdiction. The plurality in Rapanos created a ‘relatively permanent flow’ test for deciding whether the Federal Government has jurisdiction over a body of water. Kennedy, in his concurrence, outlined a more expansive test focusing on whether or not a body of water affects the physical, biological, or chemical integrity of a downstream navigable waterway for determining whether or not there was a “significant nexus” between the two.

While proclaiming to have taken into account the plurality opinion as well, it is clear that the EPA and USACE tailored the rule to be more in line with Justice Kennedy’s opinion. This can be seen by the Executive Summary of the Rule quoting Justice Kennedy:

Justice Kennedy concluded that wetlands possess the requisite significant nexus if the wetlands “either alone or in combination with similarly situated [wet]lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’” 547 U.S. at 780.

In the official discussion of the rule the EPA and USACE outline five different types of waters that this new rule will cover and describe how each of these types of bodies of waters can significantly affect navigable waterways. These five types of waters are Prairie Potholes, which are glacially formed pools in the central north of the country, they generally connect to navigable waterways through shallow subsurface flows or artificially created drainage mechanisms. Carolina and Delmarva bays exist on the Atlantic coast and are formed by precipitation with the bodies of water usually draining into shallow groundwater, these bodies of water tend to be lumped together and/or close to streams. The third type of body of water that the new rule will be covering are pocosins, which are found in the southeastern portion of the country and are peat accumulating wetlands that exist on a hill. Next are western vernal pools which are seasonal bodies of water, they form in wet months in the west and then either drain or evaporate during dry summer months. Finally coastal prairie wetlands found in Louisiana and Texas will be regulated; these are freshwater wetlands that are found in abundance and generally collectively drain to a common river or tributary. The rule goes in to great length discussing why the agencies find each of these types of waters to have a significant nexus to navigable waters. If a body of water on a piece of property is found to connect to similar small bodies of water that are ultimately hydrologically connected to a navigable waterway then they will fall under the jurisdiction of the CWA.

The EPA and USACE press release specifically notes that “ditches that are not constructed in streams and that flow only when it rains are not covered.” The Wall Street Journal reports that only about 3% more waterways will be put under federal jurisdiction with this new rule. But most of the concern regarding the rule surrounds the types of waters that the expansion covers and not the quantity. Four of the five new types of waters outlined in the rule occur in depressions on a variety of land, some of which could be on farmland and/or land used for mining purposes. The EPA and USACE have determined that these types of waters have a “significant nexus” to navigable waters. While the rule doesn’t change exemptions or exclusions to the CWA (including the agricultural exemptions and exceptions), concern arise from landowners being uncertain if a small body of water that forms on their land is a “prairie pothole” or other type of water covered by the CWA, or simply a large hydrologically disconnected pooling of water. Determining the hydrological connections of these pools of water could prove costly.

While the comment period for this rule has closed and the rule will go in to full effect in late July Schroeder Law Offices submitted comments on the draft rules on behalf of our clients. Ultimately, much of the uncertainty concerning this rule will not be clarified until it is in full effect and users/landowners can see how the Federal agencies apply it. Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog for more water news that may affect you!

The 300 page document outlining and discussing the rule released by the agencies can be found here.

The USACE and EPA Press Release can be found here.

The Wall Street Journal Article can be found here.

The Washington Department of Ecology has started work on updating the state’s Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) general permit, and is calling for public input in the formative stages of this process.
Ecology is the state’s control agency, as authorized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for activities falling under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Its authority encompasses permitting and regulation of wastewater discharge in various forms, including that from facilities confining animals such as cattle, horses and chicken in large numbers. Generally speaking, a CAFO exists when animals are confined for at least 45 days in a 12-month period to an area that contains no vegetation.
Washington’s CAFO permit, which addresses both federal and state regulations, expired in 2011. Facilities that were covered by the permit at the time of expiration? there were 10 ? are allowed to operate under the permit’s terms during the update process.
In an effort to both involve and inform interested parties, Ecology has scheduled two public meetings ? at Zillah on April 21 and at Bellingham on April 23. In what it is calling listening sessions, Ecology will outline its agenda as well as field comments and questions.
More information is available on Ecology’s website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/permits/cafo/index.html.

The April issue of Nevada Lawyer Magazine focuses on Agriculture Law. Matthew Curti, along with attorney Linda Bullen, authored an article about the importance of submitting comments to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rulemaking, as well as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) draft Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). The article provides an overview of the commenting process, and also provides tips for writing effective comments.

For the full article, visit http://nvbar.org/articles/sites/default/files/NevLawyer_April_2015_AG_Client.pdf