The adoption of efficient water technologies is identified as a goal under Oregon Water Resources Department’s (“OWRD”) 2017 Integrated Water Resources Strategy (https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/programs/Planning/IWRS/Pages/default.aspx). For agricultural uses, weather-based irrigation, soil moisture controls, computer controlled irrigation, and piping and drip irrigation systems are being developed to substantially reduce the amount of water applied to land for the same use. At first glance, the adoption of efficient irrigation technology appears to be a “no-brainer” with few downsides. However, the problem can be more complex than it first appears.

A core tenant of prior appropriation is the prevention of “injury” to existing water rights by reducing water available to fulfill existing rights of use. A component of a water right is the “consumptive use” or the amount of water for which the water user loses control usually from a described place of use or otherwise does not return to the source, the excess becomes available for subsequent use. Efficient irrigation technology alters irrigation’s consumptive use and runoff, sometimes reducing the water available to other water users that were benefitting from the “waste” created by inefficient irrigation techniques.

Often, inefficient irrigation seeps into shallow aquifers, sometimes contributing to surface streams days, months, or years later as return flow. Oregon’s conjunctive management rules have attempted to jointly regulate surface and groundwater sources, as described by Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 690, Division 9, yet these rules do not directly account for the effects of irrigation seepage on return flows. By encouraging efficient irrigation technologies, OWRD’s strategic planning might inadvertently cause injury to downstream water users that benefit from the increased return flow due to current irrigation techniques.

The United States Supreme Court (“Court”) addressed this issue in the case Montana v. Wyoming. 563 U.S. 368 (2011). The Yellowstone Compact distributes water of the Yellowstone River, which flows north from Wyoming into Montana. Water users in Wyoming adopted the use of more efficient sprinkler irrigation systems. The sprinklers increased the consumptive use portion of the water withdrawn compared to the earlier flood irrigation where a portion of the excess seeped into the ground. Montana alleged that the switch in technologies reduced seepage and runoff by 25% in some locations while still diverting the same quantity of water. In short, Montana lost access to water due to the increase in “efficiency” by Wyoming water users.

The Court decided that the switch did not cause injury to Montana water users, since these states appeared to only apply these rules to changes in “place of diversion, place or purpose of use” and not to changes in “crop changes or day-to-day irrigation adjustments or repairs.” The Court reasoned that a switch to efficient irrigation was more like an adjustment or repair than a change that would prompt the injury analysis. Likewise, the Court reasoned that the transition to sprinklers was akin to recapture doctrines under Wyoming and Montana, which allow water users to reuse water still remaining on their land after initial use. The Court reasoned that sprinklers are a form of efficient reuse of water rather than a fundamental change in water use supporting injury. The Court decided that Wyoming water users did not violate the Yellowstone Compact by using efficient irrigation technologies, even when significantly less water flowed to Montana.

The United States Government Accountability Office has recently released a report on irrigation technologies and their effects on return flows: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-128SP?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery#summary. The report notes that efficient irrigation can expand the area of irrigation, enabling more production, using the same volume of water. At the same time, the report identifies that return flows might be significantly reduced and might diminish water availability for downstream users.

The key issue to consider is if water that seeps into an aquifer is considered a part of the consumptive use or whether it is returned to a source for further use. If consumption only includes the volume of water used by plants, other water users might have a right to the runoff from inefficient irrigation practices (which fits more with Oregon’s conjunctive management policies). If consumption is any water placed on the land without regard to the destination of the water applied, any reduction in return flow might not be considered an injury. As efficient irrigation practices are increasingly adopted, the dark side of decreased runoff might rise as a real issue in the future!

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

On July 24, 2019, Tim Wilson, Nevada Division of Water Resources’ acting State Engineer gave an informative presentation on the 2019 Legislative Session. Mr. Wilson provided summaries of several water related bills that were introduced and/or passed during this session. A few of the more interesting bills are described below.

Assembly Bill 62 (AB 62)

AB 62 was introduced by the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining on behalf of Nevada Division of Water Resources (“NDWR”) on November 19, 2018. This bill proposed legislative changes concerning the granting of Applications for Extensions of Time for Proofs of Completion only. It does not address Extensions of Time for Proofs of Beneficial Use. Currently a permittee is allowed any number of extensions of time to file a Proof of Completion of Work. According to Mr. Wilson, the threshold for granting an extension of time for a proof of completion is unreasonably low as the permittee need only show good faith and reasonable diligence to perfect their water right application. NRS 533.380 defines “reasonable diligence” as the “steady application of effort to perfect the application in a reasonably expedient and efficient manner under all the facts and circumstances.” Water cannot be placed to beneficial use unless and until the construction works are complete. Mr. Wilson noted that the granting of unlimited extensions of time is undermining the basic principal of beneficial use.

AB 62 sought to develop hard time limits on the filings of the Proofs of Completion of Work depending on the size of the project and the amount of money expended on the project. For example, a permit for municipal use would require a Proof of Completion to be filed within 15 years and at least $50,000 must be expended on the project. A permit for an irrigation or stockwater use would have a 5 year cap with a much smaller minimum expenditure. To accommodate permittees who are unable to complete construction of works for reason outside of their control, AB 62 proposed a “tolling” provision to suspend the time limit for express conditions such as the permittee is waiting on federal, state or local government consent necessary for the project or a pending court action or adjudication.

Many amendments were made to AB 62 and the bill was eventually passed by both the Assembly and the Senate. The Governor removed the majority of the language proposed, updated the statute to direct the State Engineer to adopt any regulation necessary to carry out provisions of the statute concerning Proofs of Completion and ordered that copies of the regulations be provided to any person upon request, signed the Bill, and directed NDWR to draft regulations. AB 62 as-enacted can be found at (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/80th2019/Bill/5987/Text). Workshops and public meetings will be held and NDWR plans to make the draft regulation language and updates available on their website at http://water.nv.gov/index.aspx.

Assembly Bill 95 (AB 95)

AB 95 was introduced by the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining on behalf of the Legislative Committee on Public Lands on January 24, 2019. This bill proposed legislative changes for domestic well allowance during times of curtailment. Nevada statutes at NRS 534.110 require the State Engineer to conduct investigations of basins, or portions of basins; and, where it appears there is not enough groundwater supply to satisfy permittees and vested rights holders’ withdrawals, the State Engineer may order withdrawals (including withdrawals from domestic wells) to be restricted based on priority.

AB 95 amends the statutes so that in the event the State Engineer finds, or a court orders, State Engineer restriction, State Engineer curtailment, or basin designation under a Critical Management Area, the State Engineer can allow a domestic well to withdraw up to 0.5 acre feet annually, if it can be recorded by a water meter. The revised statute does not make domestic wells immune to curtailment but ensures they will still receive some water. AB 95 was passed by both the Assembly and Senate and was signed by the Governor. AB 95 as-enacted can be found at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/80th2019/Bill/6082/Text.

Senate Bill 140 (SB 140)

SB 140 was introduced by the Committee on Natural Resources on February 11, 2019 and proposed to reserve 10 percent of water available for appropriation in certain basins not yet fully or over appropriated. Senator Pete Goicoechea testified that the intent of SB 140 is to “avoid over-appropriation of available water in basins by placing a marker for retention.” SB 140 was passed by the Senate and Assembly and signed by the Governor. SB 140 as-enacted can be found at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/80th2019/Bill/6171/Text. As enrolled, NRS 533 will now include a provision wherein for each basin where there is uncommitted groundwater pursuant to existing permits, certificates or otherwise, the State Engineer shall reserve 10 percent of the total remaining, non-committed, unappropriated groundwater. As introduced, SB 140 intended for the reserved water to be available for use during times of drought or emergency, however, as enrolled, the statute further explains that the groundwater reserved in the basin is not available for any use.

During the presentation many questions and comments were posed as to how this will be implemented, and all the issues that come into play practically as well as legally. NDWR now must attempt to figure out the amounts of uncommitted water available: pending applications need to be resolved before this determination can be made; NDWR needs to determine how to address consumptive vs. non-consumptive uses; and, NDWR needs to decide how to address areas where basins share perennial yield amounts. One can only anticipate that this Bill will be amended in the future.

It is no secret that Nevada water is a precious resource that needs laws in place to protect its availability to current and future water users. Several bills in the 2019 session related to the protection and conservation of water. Nevada’s precarious water situation has gained the attention of our legislature and it will be interesting to see what water related bills will be introduced next session.

Schroeder Law Offices is pleased to announce that Attorney/Partner Sarah Liljefelt accepted the position of Water Resources Committee Chair for the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, beginning in the coming year. Sarah has been a member of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association for many years, and has been very active with the Oregon CattleWomen as Vice President and Legislative Committee Chair. She is excited to use her Oregon water resources knowledge to support and defend the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association’s water interests in the years to come.

Sarah’s new position was announced earlier this week when she presented at the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association’s Mid-Year Conference in Canyonville, Oregon. Sarah provided an update on the Klamath River Basin Adjudication and conjunctive surface water/groundwater management in the Klamath Basin. Some of the other highlights from the conference included an update of Western Resources Legal Center’s recent victories by Executive Director Caroline Lobdell (Sarah is a former WRLC law clerk), and a trip to Melrose Vineyards (https://www.melrosevineyards.com/) with the Oregon Cattlewomen – beautiful location, friendly staff, and great food and wine!

As most of us are aware, Earth Day has become a global occurrence for which communities host events throughout the week of the holiday. This year, Earth Day fell on Monday, April 22, and communities around the world hosted festivities such as community clean-ups, tree-plantings, and educational events that focused on climate literacy and bringing awareness to climate science for the purpose of encouraging individuals to participate in the preservation of our communities.

Though celebrated annually, Schroeder Law Offices’ (“SLO”) mission includes providing services to those that feed our communities and we consider environmental preservation on a day-to-day basis. SLO works daily with clients such as municipal water users and districts, corporations, and both individual and family farmers to maximize production and efficiency of water use. As we like to say, we do EVERYTHING water!

For ideas on how you can take action for making every day an Earth Day, visit the Earth Day Network’s website for ideas and to learn about “A Billion Acts of Green,” the campaign to reach 3 billion acts of green for the Earth Day holiday’s 50th anniversary in 2020.

Research indicates that planting additional trees may have huge benefits in generating rainfall, thus, consider spending time outside this spring and plant a tree with the goal of bringing freshwater to your community!

When most of us think about the changing seasons, we think about the change in weather. When we think about the transition to Summer, we think about the days getting warmer. When we think about the transition to Winter, we think about the days getting colder. There is much more to changing seasons than changes in weather.

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of a season is “a period of the year characterized by or associated with a particular activity or phenomenon.” Examples of this definition include a period associated with activities of agriculture such as growth or harvesting, irrigation seasons, periods when animals engage in certain activities like migration, birth of offspring, and moving from high “summer” country to low “winter” country. In life, one can characterize the seasons with the circle of life with birth or renewal in the spring and death, hibernation and sleep in the winter. There are so many ways we can perceive these natural changes each year.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration points out that seasonal changes in turn affect soil moisture, evaporation rates, river flows and lake levels. The subsequent changes in vegetation also affect the amount and kinds of crops and food available for humans, animals and other organisms.

The effects of seasonal changes also present potential risks. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) provides warnings of risks presented in the seasonal change to Spring. FEMA notes that while Spring typically brings warmer weather and longer days, it also brings risk associated with heavy rains, severe weather and rapid snowmelt that can lead to flooding and/or damage to levees and dams. For more information concerning risks and protection from spring flooding, please visit FEMA’s “What You Should Know” at https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/Spring_Flood_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

So, as the seasons change and we swap out our wardrobe for the changing temperature, lets remember a change in season is so much more than just a change in weather.

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!

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!

The Public Trust Doctrine is seeping to California’s aquifers, bringing something like conjunctive surface water and groundwater management to the state. Conjunctive management is a legal approach to managing surface water and groundwater as an interconnected resource. Often states separate the regulation of groundwater from surface water. Conjunctive management attempts to reconnect the regulation of surface water and groundwater to better match real-world hydrological effects.

            Groundwater often supplies water to rivers, called “baseflow” within a “gaining reach,” and pumping can reduce groundwater’s contribution to surface streams. (See https://water.usgs.gov/edu/rivers-contain-groundwater.html). Likewise, surface water recharges aquifers in “losing reaches.” Regulating surface water and groundwater together is a relatively new development in water law, as legal systems catch up to modern scientific understanding. California has never adopted a groundwater code, let alone explicitly adopt conjunctive management.

            The passage of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in 2014 ushered in new planning and review scheme for groundwater use and management in the State. (https://www.water-law.com/groundwater-sustainability-plan-regulations/ ). The legislation attempts to prevent “undesirable effects” of groundwater overconsumption and bring groundwater use into a sustainable pattern. Cal. Water Code § 10721(x)(1)-(6).

            Regulation of surface water in California has been affected by the Public Trust Doctrine. Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Superior Court explicitly recognized that the Public Trust Doctrine would supplement statutes governing surface water. 33 Cal. 3d 419 (1983) (“Audubon”). (The Public Trust Doctrine is a well-established principle in California that the State hold certain resources in trust for the benefit of the public, and must take these principles into account when making natural resource decisions.) The case dealt with diversions from non-navigable streams flowing into Mono Lake that is “navigable” under state law. The Court found support for the application of the Public Trust Doctrine to non-navigable tributaries in previous cases like Audubon, showing that the doctrine can reach upstream to prevent harms to downstream navigable streams and lakes.

            In the recent decision Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board, California’s Third District Court of Appeals held that the Public Trust Doctrine can apply to groundwater that is hydraulically connected to navigable surface waters, like a “tributary” to the surface stream. 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 393 (2018) (“Control Board”). (Interestingly, this application of the Public Trust Doctrine implicitly favors surface water over groundwater sources, since the reasoning does not support finding surface water as “tributary” to groundwater sources).

            Until Control Board, the courts did not apply the Public Trust Doctrine to groundwater, likely on the basis that aquifers are non-navigable. The court, using the reasoning found in Audubon, found groundwater extraction in the region near the Scott River would reduce surface flows and harm public trust interests in the navigable river. In effect, the Public Trust Doctrine would extend to any groundwater source that provides water, or has stopped providing water, to a navigable surface water body.

            This follows a trend in applying surface water laws and regulations to groundwater. In Hawaii Wildlife Fund. v. County of Maui, the Ninth Circuit decided that discharges into groundwater could be regulated by the Clean Water Act. 881 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2018). Typically, the Clean Water Act does not apply to groundwater. See 80 Fed. Reg. 37054, 37099 (June 29, 2015). But since the aquifer was hydraulically connected to the Pacific Ocean, the aquifer was a “conduit” transporting pollutants to the sea. For more information, see: https://www.water-law.com/ninth-circuit-upholds-groundwater-conduit-theory/. Like the Public Trust Doctrine in Audubon, the Clean Water Act has begun to seep into aquifers as courts attempt to wrestle with modern hydrogeological science.

            Will these rules seep into aquifer pore spaces as well? As discussed in previous blog posts, California courts are currently deciding if aquifer pore spaces are public or private property. (See https://www.water-law.com/who-owns-an-aquifer/). The Control Board decision adds another layer to the aquifer questions in California: Is there a public trust aspect to aquifer pore spaces that potentially hold (or held) groundwater? Or does the doctrine remain confined to the groundwater alone? Keeping the doctrine out of the pore spaces would be difficult, as aquifers are complex systems of transresources. (Transresource systems are interconnected, yet distinct, resources in a dynamic relationship, see https://www.water-law.com/new-associate-attorney-jakob-wiley-defends-collective-aquifer-governance-agreements/.) Scientifically, aquifers and groundwater are in a constant dynamic relationship. The legal question remains open whether aquifer pore spaces are public, like water, or private, like the land and geological materials that make up aquifers.

            As the Public Trust Doctrine sinks into the aquifer, California courts and agencies may face pressure to implement “backdoor conjunctive management” through litigation and planning for Groundwater Sustainability Plans related to the Public Trust Doctrine. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in California will likely have to take the Public Trust Doctrine into account as they develop and review Groundwater Sustainability Plans and make land use decisions for groundwater development. (See https://californiawaterblog.com/2018/10/07/the-public-trust-and-sgma/ ). While never adopting a groundwater code or conjunctive management regulations, California may then begin to regulate surface water and groundwater as a connected resource.

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

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.

It’s that time of year again! As 2018 draws to a close, Schroeder Law Offices wants to remind Oregon water users that the deadline to submit water use measurements to the Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) is December 31, 2018.

Many permits and certificates for both surface and groundwater rights contain language specifying the type of meter and frequency of measurements and reporting required in order for the user to remain in compliance with the terms of their water use rights. These requirements are typically along the lines of:

Before water use begins, the user must install a meter or other suitable measuring device approved by the Director at each point of appropriation or diversion. After use begins, the user must maintain the device in good working order.

The user must keep a monthly record of the volume of water diverted, and submit a report which includes these measurements to the Department annually, or more frequently if required by the Director. Further, the Director may require the user to report general water use information, including the place and nature of use of water under the permit.

Not all water users are required to report their water use; therefore, it is important to be aware of the conditions set forth in your permits and certificates and to make sure you remain in compliance.

If the water use reporting condition is included, you can find the reporting form on OWRD’s website here. You can also report your water use online here. You will note that the “water year,” as outlined in the reporting form, runs from October through September, annually.

Schroeder encourages water users with this condition to take meter readings at the end of each month and to keep that information in their files along with a copy of the reports submitted to OWRD annually.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ blog for more helpful tips and reminders, and don’t forget to submit your reports by December 31, 2018!

Schroeder Law Offices’ paralegal Tara Jackson spent a sunny weekend with fellow members of the Oregon Ground Water Association in August camping at beautiful Pelton Park for the Association’s annual Picnic/Camp out. The event is held by the Association every summer in appreciation of its members and provides a much needed respite for water professionals to unwind during an extremely busy time of year for the industry.

Friday night features a pot luck meal with prizes for the best dishes. Tara’s submissions have yet to win, but she will keep trying! Saturday is equal parts competition and relaxation! Many families spend the day on and in the waters of Lake Simtustus. Tara represented Schroeder Law Offices for the first time this year in Saturday morning’s annual horseshoe competition as the only female competitor. While the competition is all in good fun, there are some very serious competitors and teams are made by the luck of the draw. Luckily, Tara’s teammate was good enough and good-natured enough to carry her, despite the fact she had never before thrown a horseshoe. Perhaps some practice is needed before next year!

The theme this year was “Under the Big Top…come one, come all.” Both kids and adults had a great time dressing up in clown garb for photos, while enjoying Oysters on the BBQ, a much loved tradition of the Picnic. Campers enjoyed brisket and traditional BBQ sides for Saturday dinner.

During the dinner program, the Memorial Fund announced winners of its annual scholarships. Ryan Weaver won the fifteen hundred dollar 2018 Memorial Fund Scholarship and Emily Gill won the fifteen hundred dollar Family in Business Scholarship. These scholarships are only available to Association members, family members of an Association member, employees of an Association member, or direct family of an Association member employee, thus are a great resource for members of the Association. Applications for these scholarships are available on the Association’s website and are due April 1 of each year.

Following dessert and bingo (with prizes) campers dispersed to various campsites for further revelry. The campfire ban imposed due to a very tenuous fire season in Oregon this summer failed to quell the merriment.

As always, this was a great event. It is always nice to have a chance to interact with fellow Association members outside of a formal environment. Thank you Oregon Ground Water Association Picnic Committee for putting on such a lovely event for the Association membership!

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!

Attorney Sarah Liljefelt presented at Halfmoon’s Water Laws and Regulations seminar on June 7^th on the topic of Oregon Groundwater, teaching a group of engineers about groundwater ownership, regulation, and acquisition of groundwater use rights in Oregon. This week, on June 28^th, Sarah will present at the Oregon State Bar Environmental & Natural Resources Section’s “brownbag” continuing legal education seminar on the topic of groundwater regulation in the Klamath Basin in Oregon. Her co-presenter is Lisa Brown of WaterWatch, who will speak about groundwater in Harney County. If you are interested in attending, please visit the Section’s Events page or Schroeder Law Offices’ Coming Events page for more information. Sarah’s presentation materials are available on the Section’s Events page.

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

Water use conditions in the Klamath Basin continue to worsen in 2018. On March 8, 2018, a water “call” was made in the Klamath Basin, and the Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) began the validation process for shutting off junior water users. Within the week, on March 13^th, Governor Kate Brown declared a drought in Klamath County, Oregon, the first drought declaration since 2015, coming much sooner than hoped or predicted.

In April, OWRD began regulating off water users in the Klamath Basin. On April 13, the Oregon Water Resources Commission approved temporary emergency rules granting a preference to water rights for human consumption and stock watering in Klamath County. The rules allow certain water users with water rights for human consumption and stock watering to continue using surface water for such uses despite OWRD’s regulation off of water use rights. Exempt uses of groundwater, including domestic and stock uses, may also continue despite OWRD’s regulation. The Commission passed similar temporary rules granting the same preferences during the last drought period.

Also in April, Klamath Project water users found themselves unable to begin irrigating due to a federal court injunction. The Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes in northern California previously brought suit against the Bureau of Reclamation and National Marine Fisheries Service in federal court, alleging mismanagement of the Klamath River below the four major dams lead to an outbreak of C. shasta, a parasite that infects juvenile Coho salmon. The court entered an injunction requiring 50,000 acre feet of water stored in Upper Klamath Lake to flush and dilute the parasite until most of the salmon have migrated to the ocean, usually occurring after the beginning of June. Irrigators and irrigation districts petitioned the court to lift the injunction, but the court declined to do so in 2018. For more information, see May 1 article from the Capital Press, Judge upholds Klamath River Injunction.

In May, the Klamath Irrigation District brought suit against OWRD, seeking to compel the agency to take exclusive charge of Upper Klamath Lake to distribute water according to the district’s water use rights determined by the agency in the Klamath Basin Adjudication. The district alleges that it disagrees with the Bureau of Reclamation and PacifiCorps as to the proper distribution of water, and those entities are releasing without valid water use rights, causing injury to the district and its patrons. 

Also in May, the Klamath Tribes filed suit in federal court in northern California against the Bureau of Reclamation, US Fish & Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service, alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Protection Act by failing to maintain appropriate elevations in Upper Klamath Lake. The Tribes seek declaration of the alleged violations, an injunction against further jeopardy and habitat modification, and for the agencies to reinitiate consultation resulting in a new biological opinion.

Finally, on April 27, 2018, the Klamath County Circuit Court issued a Case Management Order in the Klamath Adjudication, outlining a schedule for hearing the first substantive exceptions filed with the court since the judicial phase of the adjudication began in 2013. First the court will decide exceptions made against federally reserved water claims, excluding Tribal claims. Next, the court will decide exceptions against Walton and Klamath Termination Act claims. Third, the court will decide exceptions to Tribal claims. Numerous exceptions have been filed with the court, alleging OWRD awarded too much water to these claims, ignoring the pertinent legal standards for deciding these claims, to the detriment of other Klamath Basin water users. A decision on the first group of exceptions is not anticipated until 2019.

The Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement was terminated on December 28, 2017. The agreement called for retirement of irrigation rights to increase stream flows into Upper Klamath Lake by 30,000 acre feet per year. This “retirement” (or cancellation) of water use rights, which was negotiated largely in the absence of upper basin irrigators, was viewed unfavorably by many of the affected irrigators, and was ultimately not funded by Congress. Discussions about alternative agreements continue to this date.

Overall, the return of drought conditions, coupled with fish disease and five years of merely procedural rulings in the Klamath Basin Adjudication, have left water users in the Klamath Basin in serious trouble.

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

For over half a century, the question of how to conserve and replenish water in Idaho’s largest aquifer, the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer (ESPA), has been on the collective minds of the state’s water users. Serious droughts in the 1990s increased pressure on the ESPA resource, and preliminary recharge efforts were unsuccessful. Finally, in 2009, the ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan, otherwise known as CAMP, was signed into law. CAMP’s goal is to annually recharge 100,000 acre feet (af) during the first ten years of the plan’s implementation, followed by 250,000 af per year thereafter.

The recharge comes from a combination of sources. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) also supports canal companies and irrigation districts recharge projects, rotations and efficiency reductions.

The 100,000 af goal was not quite reached in the first few years. Recharge was roughly 75,000 af in both the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 seasons. However, the 2016-2017 saw 317,000 af returned to the ESPA, far exceeding the 100,000 af goal. The 2017-2018 season is shaping up to be even better. Over 350,000 af have already been replenished.

ESPA’s recharge success is good news for the residents of southern and eastern Idaho, and Idaho in general, as roughly 25% of Idaho’s economy is dependent upon agricultural output from the region. Unfortunately, CAMP’s success in the ESPA has not been matched by similar programs throughout the state and region. The Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer (RPA) in the northern part of the state, which is responsible for roughly 8% of Idaho’s production of goods and services, has a CAMP program in place. However, the RPA has not been nearly as successful as the ESPA at achieving substantial recharge. Another CAMP program has been proposed for the Treasure Valley, but has been delayed due to ongoing discussion between legislators and constituents.

In Washington, the Odessa Groundwater Replacement Program (OGWRP) was implemented to reintroduce water back into the Odessa Aquifer. Several initiatives under the umbrella of this program have been enacted, and have had reasonable success. However, efforts have focused more on limiting usage of the aquifer rather than reintroducing water back into it. Oregon has also taken steps to encourage recharging of its aquifers. However, as illustrated by the attempts in the Umatilla Basin, these programs have struggled to achieve significant recharge.

CAMP’s success did not come overnight. As with any major experimental project, it took decades of planning, communication, and compromise to achieve the ESPA’s level of recharge. Nonetheless, the potential for aquifer recharge demonstrated is inspiring, and will hopefully pave the way for similar projects throughout the West.

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

Written by Alyssa Holland, Lisa Mae Gage, and Lisa Kane

Water Week 2018 is currently underway as water organizations across the country gather in Washington, D.C. to advocate the importance of water protection and conservation with hopes of ultimately elevating water to a national priority. Organizations in the water sector are using Water Week to ramp up their efforts to educate policymakers about the need for funding to benefit water infrastructure. Many organizations are collaborating for Water Week, including National Association of Clean Water Agencies (“NACWA”), Water Environment Federation (“WEF”), American Water Works Association (“AWWA”), and the National Water Resources Association (“NWRA”), for example.

A few main events will take place during Water Week:

• On April 17-18, 2018 the National Policy Fly-In:
  An event to provide the public with the opportunity to voice concerns and challenges to their policy makers.
• April 17-19, 2018: Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association (“WWEMA”) 45th Washington Forum:
  “Effectively Communicating Change at the National, State, and Local Level,” a discussion regarding changes happening in Washington, D.C. and to the nationwide water infrastructure, environmental and public health protection, and legislative and regulatory changes that will impact the water sector.
• On April 19, 2018 the WateReuse Association Water Week 2018 Congressional Briefing:
  Four (4) different communities across the country will be highlighted for their use of water recycling and the local economic benefits that encourage other communities to do the same.

While each organization has a slightly different mission, each has a goal of advancing education regarding water issues and returning to their communities with the priority of educating the general public on the same issues. One of the main events, the Congressional Briefing, will directly discuss tools used in arid states (such as one of our main states of practice, Nevada) to address water scarcity and a way for communities to better manage their local water resources to help spur economic growth and plan for the future.

Schroeder Law Offices Nevada attorney Therese Ure also attends and hosts local conferences in Nevada to continue education regarding how to support the community’s resource challenges and even more particularly, how to support Northern Nevada’s agriculture industry. Click here to see our coming events for local education on the topic. Although attending these events may not be a possibility for everyone, we should all use Water Week as a time to reflect on how valuable water is to our everyday lives and to look for ways to conserve and protect water within our own communities.

On February 1, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the “groundwater conduit theory,” whereby a discharge of pollutants into groundwater that is fairly traceable to a navigable surface water is the functional equivalent of a discharge directly into the navigable water body for the purpose of regulation under the Clean Water Act. This argument has been proffered many times in the past, but prior to this case this theory had, at best, narrow and limited success. The full Ninth Circuit case is available here.

The case involved the County of Maui, Hawaii and its wastewater treatment plant. The plant uses four wells as its primary means of disposing effluent into groundwater and the Pacific Ocean. The County injects three to five million gallons of treated wastewater per day into its wells, and, according to the County’s expert, when the County injects 2.8 million gallons of effluent per day, the amount of effluent that reaches the ocean is 3,456 gallons per meter of coastline per day. The Court stated this is “roughly the equivalent of installing a permanently-running garden hose at every meter along the 800 meters of coastline.”

Discharges of pollutants may be authorized by permit under the Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”). Jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act requires three things: 1) addition of a pollutant 2) to a navigable water 3) from a point source. This case focuses on the third requirement. Clean Water Act cases hold that a point source is a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, which in a lot of cases really means a pipe, ditch, or canal.

Wells do not directly connect to navigable water (in this case, the Pacific Ocean). Instead, the water injected into wells must travel through groundwater to reach the ocean. In 2013, the EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, Hawaii Department of Health, and University of Hawaii conducted what is called a “tracer dye study.” Essentially, they put dye into the wells and then monitored the ocean for the dye. At its conclusion, the study found a hydraulic connection between two of the wells and the ocean.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that point source discharges that travel indirectly through groundwater to a navigable water, is a violation of the Clean Water Act if the discharger does not have a permit. The Court reasoned that “this case is about preventing the County from doing indirectly what it cannot do directly.” Since the County could not build a waste pipe that emptied directly into the ocean without a permit, it could do so indirectly through its wells to avoid the requirements of the Clean Water Act. 

There are currently cases before the Fourth and Sixth Circuits which also implicate the groundwater conduit theory. If the holding by the Ninth Circuit is adopted by other Circuits, it will represent a change for the NPDES permitting program and regulation under the Clean Water Act. On the other hand, if a split develops in the Circuits, it may lead to litigation in the United States Supreme Court.

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

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

At its February Spring Technical Seminar, the Oregon Ground Water Association celebrated 70 years as an Association. Laura Schroeder and Tara Jackson helped the Association celebrate its many years of successful advocacy to promote sustainable ground water development and management.

The anniversary banquet featured stories from patriarchs of the industry, complimented by a slide show of photos to jog memories even further. Scrap books were also on hand memorializing past events and Association members had a great time thumbing through the books.

It is Schroeder Law Offices’ pleasure to be a member of the Oregon Ground Water Association. The Association represents generations of family businesses that have provided access to groundwater for homes, farms, and businesses. The Association is actively engaged in the State legislative and rule making process and through the Association its small business members have a big voice at the State Capital.

Thank you Oregon Ground Water Association for 70 years of advocating for your members by informing our legislature and State agencies about the real world consequences of laws and polices!

Visit OGWA’s website for more information about the Association

.