Record low snow accumulation and warm temperatures in Western river basins raise concern about water supply in the Western U.S.[1]. The future of the Colorado River Basin, one of the most contested water resources in the nation, impacts over 5 million acres of agricultural land and drinking water for a population of over 40 million. It also affects economic stability for major municipalities including Las Vegas. [2] These are all affected by drought and the “Law of the River”.

Spanning water use by seven “Basin States” including southern Nevada, the Basin provides a life source to those states and Tribal Nations. It even crosses the international border into Mexico. This valuable water source has been subject to a multitude of legal disputes for over a century. It additionally faced a critical deadline this past Friday, February 14, 2026. There is much concern about Drought and the Law of the River. The concern is not new according to an earlier article on this site.

Understanding the “Law of the River”

Without a working agreement between the many parties who rely upon it, the future of the Colorado River Basin water supply is increasingly threatened for agricultural, domestic, and municipal users alike. As the threat increases, understanding the tools for water use agreements between states becomes ever more important. So, what really dictates access to water?

Interstate water compacts are negotiated agreements among states (think of the domestic equivalent of international treaties) endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court as an alternative to litigation. [3]

The Colorado River Compact represents one of the first “successful” interstate water dispute negotiations. It equitably apportions use of the Colorado River between the Upper and Lower Basin states. Nevada, one of the Lower Basin states and the driest state in the country, relies heavily on this apportionment. The compact is still in effect today over a century after its ratification.[4]

Equitable apportionment is a resolution tool specifically designed for disputes between states. When interstate water disputes arise, the Court invokes equitable apportionment principles to distribute water between the parties in line with the water laws of the contending states. 

The “Law of the River” includes a series of legal documents: compacts including the Colorado River Compact of 1922, supreme court decisions, federally recognized Tribal reserved water rights, and the 1944 international treaty with Mexico.[5] Together, these treaties, compacts, and decrees govern the allocation of the Colorado River Basin waters. The multitude of users who rely on it each year are governed by these rules.

Drought Contingency Plan

The 2019 Agreement, also known as the Upper Basin and Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plans (DCP) is a more recent addition to address drought and the Law of the River. The DCP is the culmination of negotiations between the seven Basin States facing a 19-year drought.[6] In the DCP, the Basin States voluntarily agreed to reduce water use to avoid regulation by the federal government and hold the Upper Basin States accountable. This theoretically leaves enough water downstream for the Lower Basin States even in years of drought. This type of cooperation is a necessary sacrifice in the face of warmer, drier years ahead and sets a precedent for conservation of the vital water supply. However, the current allocation agreement is at risk due to failure of the Basin States to come to an updated compromise that meets the modern needs of the Basin.

Changes in snow, rain, and temperature distribution as well as increasing pressure on water supply threaten the continued functionality of the current Basin water allocations. The original allocations cannot sustain the current demand. Use already exceeds the current river flows. [7]

The Current Status of Drought and the Law of the River.

Increasingly at odds across the Upper and Lower Basins, the seven states governed by the terms of the Colorado Compact have yet again missed a deadline set by the Secretary of the Interior to properly manage the river water. While Lower Basin users are offering to reduce their allocation, the Upper Basin claims that the Lower Basin States are seeking water that “simply does not exist. This has led to the current impasse.[8]

Failure by the Basin States to reach a deal by February 14, 2026, has resulted in the Secretary of the Interior, the watermaster under the Colorado Compact, taking over negotiations and compelling the states to agree on a compromise plan. The Bureau of Reclamation announced last week that the Department of the Interior will progress with finalizing “operating guidelines” for the Basin by October of this year. This ends a multi-years long process to find adequate alternatives to the current agreement and hopefully avoiding expensive litigation.[9]

Monitoring What is Next

As this (dis)agreement progresses, it is important to stay informed about where your water comes from and who really has a right to it. Sustainable management highly depends on water users knowing and protecting their rights, playing an active role in water use agreements, and speaking up about local policymaking that will aid the longevity of one of the most important water supplies in the West. Only by working together will the future of the Colorado River Basin be stabilized.

[1] https://www.drought.gov/drought-status-updates/snow-drought-current-conditions-and-impacts-west-2026-01-08

[2] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/western-states-miss-deadline-colorado-river-water-rights-2026-02-14/

[3] Legal Control of Water Resources by Barton H. Thompson, Jr.  

[4] https://www.unr.edu/nevada-climate-office/about-our-climate

[5] https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/lawofrvr.html

[6] https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/dcp/index.html

[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/climate/colorado-river-water.html

[8] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/western-states-miss-deadline-colorado-river-water-rights-2026-02-14/

[9] https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/news-release/5283

Nevada Water, through the University of Nevada at Reno, is a network comprised of many organizations statewide. They have the common goal of bringing water education to everyone from students to leaders. Nevada is the driest state in the country. The population is growing fast so that changes in our communities both big and small are happening every day to accommodate the growing state.

City and rural areas often see water issues differently. Nevada Water’s goal focusses on encouraging discussion and collaboration rather than immediate law and policy change. Bringing a trusted network of organizations together to discuss and solve the state’s diverse challenges, including water scarcity, for long term solutions the benefits all the state’s residents.

One approach the organization utilizes is Transformative Science-with-Society (TSS). This approach allows for multi-perspective discussion that encourages local knowledge, traditional wisdom, and science to work together at every step. Members regularly check in and adjust plans to build trust and make sure everyone is involved. This allows everyone to learn from each other and identify what changes need to be made to move toward a sustainable water future. By tracking progress, and consistently re-evaluating successes and failures from all parts of the state we can see which strategies work best for Nevada’s water challenges.

For more information, please visit the Nevada Water website. You may also see Nevada Water in the news today:

• No return to normal: Low mountain snowpack reflects the West’s grim climate outlook
• UNR leads collaborative effort to address water issues
• Gloomy water supply outlook in Nevada prompts new collaborative effort
• UNR leading project to address urban, rural water issues

Nevada Passes Two New Bills Combatting Water Scarcity Throughout the State

In June, 2025, Nevada’s Governor, Joe Lombardo, signed two new bills creating a voluntary Water Rights retirement Program. These are Assembly Bill 104 (A.B. 104) and Senate Bill 36 (S.B. 36). As a result, the Nevada Voluntary Water Rights Retirement Program was officially established. A program like this was previously successful in Diamond Valley and along the Humboldt River corridor in 2024. The program allows for water right holders to voluntarily sell their groundwater rights back to the State. Once purchased, the State Engineer will permanently retire the rights and remove them from future use and reappropriation. The program will assist the State in managing groundwater resources to ensure people are not over pumping aquifers.

Nevada’s Drought

According to the National Integrated Drought Information System, approximately 59 percent of Nevada is in a drought, while the other 41 percent is “abnormally dry”. Drought conditions pose significant challenges to the environment and its inhabitants. Additionally, persistent drought conditions can impact accessibility to clean water used for drinking, cooking and sanitation. In most cases, droughts also devastate crops and limit water availability to cattle, impacting the cost and accessibility to food. It is no surprise that the state’s lawmakers are taking action in finding ways to conserve water throughout the state.

Nevada continues to be the driest state in the country, and groundwater is quickly diminishing. The Nevada Voluntary Water Rights Retirement Program can be crucial in conserving water throughout the state for years to come. To view more information about the new bills and their funding, please visit the Nevada Legislature website and links listed below:

• Assembly Bill 1014 (A.B. 104) – AB104 Overview
• Senate Bill 36 (S.B. 36) – SB36 Text

On July 16, 2025, Iron Bar Holdings, LLC petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review of the “Corner Crossing Case.” The Corner Crossing Case is a federal case arising out of the Federal District of Wyoming. It is primed to set precedent on public land use in the West.

History of the Case

The Corner Crossing case arose from several incidents in 2020 and 2021. Four hunters were pursuing deer and elk on Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) land in southeast Wyoming.  The BLM parcels were checkerboard with private land belonging to Iron Bar Holdings, LLC (“Iron Bar”).  Iron Bar is a Wyoming based ranching operation that also provides hunting services across private and public land. It sought to exclude other hunters from using BLM parcels landlocked between its private property.  Iron Bar posted the corners of its private land making it impossible to “corner cross” the adjacent BLM parcels.

Having had prior disagreements with Iron Bar in 2021, the hunters brought an a-framed ladder to navigate over the posted private corners.  The hunters placed the bases of the ladder on BLM corners. The ladder crossed the airspace over the corners without touching Iron Bar’s private land.  Iron Bar sought criminal charges in State Court for trespassing.  The State of Wyoming found the hunters not guilty of criminal trespass. Then Iron Bar sued in federal civil court for trespass. They claimed millions of dollars in damages based 10-25% devaluation of its private property due to loss of exclusive access to public land hunting.

District and Appellate Court Holdings

Iron Bar lost its case before the Federal District of Wyoming. In its 32-page decision, the District Court ruled strongly in favor of the hunters. The court held that an individual “possess a reasonable way of passage over the unenclosed track of land without being guilty of trespass”. It found that trespass of airspace required proof of damages to the property or proof of interference in the use of the private property.  Neither occurred to Iron Bar’s private land. Iron Bar appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Hunters were similarly successful before the appellate court. In its decision, the 10^th Circuit agreed with the District Court and further applied the Unlawful Inclosures [CS1] Act of 1885 (“UIA”). The purpose of the UIA was to “prevent absorption and ownership of vast tracts of public domain”. Originally the UIA was primarily to control cattle barons. 43 U.S.C. § 1061 et seq.  The appellate court unanimously determined the same standard applied to Iron Bar’s attempts to absorb public land adjacent to its private holdings. 

Supreme Court Petition

Iron Bar had 90 days from entry of the Appellate Court’s decision to file a Petition for Write of Certiorari, requesting the Supreme Court review the case.  On May 21, 2025, Iron Bar applied for an extension of time to file the Petition. The extension was granted until July 16, 2025.  Iron Bar requested an additional extension of July 3, 2025, that was denied.

In July of 2025, a Petition for Writ of Certiorari [CS2] purportedly drafted by Iron Bar began circulating through blog posts.  However, the Petion does not currently appear on the Supreme Court’s website listing proceedings in Iron Bar’s Case (Docket 24A1136).

The Petition frames the following question for the Supreme Court’s review:

Whether the Unlawful Inclosures Act implicitly preempts private landowner’s state-law property right to exclude in an area covering millions of acres of land throughout the West.

The Petition argues it should be granted for two reasons. 

• First, Iron Bar argued it contravenes Supreme Court precedence.  Iron Bar states the Tenth Circuit’s opinion violates Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U.s. 668, 679 (1979).  In Leo Sheep, the Supreme Court held that the United States could not create public access via constructing a road across two checkerboarded public land sections without exercising its power of eminent domain across adjacent private parcels.  Iron Bar also argues the UIA does not implicitly preempt state trespass claims The Tenth Circuit’s decision effects a taking of Iron Bar’s private property by allowing others an easement to the airspace above it.

• Second, Iron Bar argues that Corner Crossing presents a question of profound legal and practical importance.  This law firm agrees.  There are vast expanses of checkerboarded public and private land throughout the West.  Much of this land is used in conjunction with private land for cattle grazing.  Clarity on when and how checkerboarded public land may be accessed by recreators may have a widespread impact on the management of property holdings, ranching operations, and grazing allotments in the West.

Conclusion

Whether the United States Supreme Court will accept the Corner Crossing Case is still undetermined.  However, you can track progress of the case on its docket and review the list of SCOTUS cases to see if the Supreme Court will accept the case. You can also check back here for future updates.

Can I Use My Spring in Oregon Without A Water Right of Use?

Oregon Water Resources Department’s (“OWRD”) is ratcheting down on new applications for surface and groundwater sources. Consequently, Oregonians are looking at those uses exempt from water righting by OWRD. Different exemptions apply whether the use is considered surface or groundwater. So what are the water right requirements for springs?

We have previously provided information on groundwater exemptions. You can access that information here: Domestic Groundwater Exemption – Schroeder Law Offices, PC

Surface Water or Groundwater?

A spring might be a groundwater source. That would apply particularly if its artesian pressure required a spring box constructed below the surface. Such a spring box may be considered a hand-dug “well”. In that case the groundwater exemptions would apply, impacting water rights related to the spring.

Or, a spring might be a surface water source. That might apply if the spring does not have a spring box constructed below the surface. Whether such a spring surface water source is exempt from permitting under ORS 537.800 requires that “under natural conditions the surface water does not form a natural channel and flow off the property where it originates anytime of the year.” Hence, water rights may still be necessary depending on conditions.

What Does the Statute Say?

Like any good lawyer, we must break this ORS 537.800 statute into required elements which are:

• What are the “natural conditions”? This means generally, if there was no infrastructure (no spring box or piping) during the wettest time of the year.

• Does the water flowing from the spring under these natural conditions form a channel? A channel can be a rivulet that only flows occasionally, ie in the wettest time of year during a spring freshet.

• Does the spring water flow off the landowner’s property on which the spring originates and will be used? With the division and development of parcelling of property this might be a significant hurdle.

If each of the three elements above can be met, what types of uses are exempt under this spring water exemption? In truth, the statute does not limit the type of use. However, if the flow does not form a channel that runs off the property it is a logical conclusion that there will not be sufficient volume for irrigation or a commercial use, raising questions about water rights for the spring.

Conclusion

From a legal perspective it is very difficult to satisfy the ORS 537.800 requirements for a surface water exempt spring use for more than a domestic use. From a technical standpoint, we would employ a hydrogeologist to determine the “natural conditions” particularly where infrastructure has already been established and may be difficult otherwise to assess the facts related to the legal requirements surrounding water rights for springs.

Revisions to Exempt Groundwater Use in Oregon

In the 2025 Oregon Legislative Session, the Oregon State legislature passed House Bill (HB) 3372. HB 3372 changes rules allowing people to use groundwater without requiring a water right. These uses are called “exempt” from water right requirements.

Groundwater is a major source of domestic, stockwater, and supplemental irrigation in Oregon, especially in rural areas. People use it for drinking, raising animals, and growing food. Typically, to use groundwater (or surface water), one must obtain a water right of use from the Oregon Water Resources Department. But, Oregon law, found in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 537.545, allows for certain groundwater uses to be “exempt” from this requirement. People often refer to these wells as “exempt groundwater wells” or “domestic-exempt wells.” To date, Oregon has approximately 230,000 exempt groundwater wells with approximately 3,800 new wells drilled annually.

Exempt Uses

Previously, under Oregon water law, someone could use an exempt groundwater well for the following uses:

• Stock watering purposes up to 12,000 gallons per day (with an exception for confined animal feeding operations)
• Watering non-commercial lawns or gardens (for areas up to one-half an acre)
• Watering school grounds up to 10 acres in a critical ground water area
• Single or group domestic in-home use up to 15,000 gallons per day
• Commercial use up to 5,000 gallons per day
• Reusing water for irrigation, if it follows certain rules

New Exempt Use

With the passing of HB 3372, an additional exemption was added: irrigation of a commercial garden up to one-half acre using no more than 3,000 gallons per day. This commercial garden use can be combined with groundwater for commercial business purposes. In that case, the total cannot go over 5,000 gallons per day. Also, the new exemption says that cannabis growers can be considered for the new commercial garden exempt use. However, the cannabis grower must be licensed as an industrial hemp grower (ORS 571.281).

Special Rule for the Lower Umatilla Basin

In the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area, the new exempt use allowing irrigation of commercial gardens does not begin until January 2, 2028. Lawmakers added this exception for the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area, shortened to “LUBGWMA,” in the final round of amendments to the proposed bill. Officials designated the Lower Umatilla Basin as a groundwater management area in 1990 due to the high levels of nitrate found in the groundwater.

When Exempt Use is the Only Way to Get Water

Given the new groundwater rules for permitting, exempt uses may be the only available groundwater source readily available to developers and small organic growers.  Schroeder Law Offices can assist in regulatory compliance and development via exempt uses.  Find us at: Inquiry Form – Schroeder Law Offices, PC

The Nevada Division of Water Resources is hosting public presentations to provide information and receive comment for issues within the Humboldt River region.  If you have concerns or are interested in learning how NDWR is looking to conjunctive management in these regions, you should attend!  More information can be found at https://water.nv.gov/posts and then following the link to the “Public Outreach on the Humboldt Rier Water Management”. 

Public Outreach Sessions

Elko on June 10^th at 2:00PM at the Great Basin College

Winnemucca on June 11^th at 10:00 AM at the Humboldt County Library

Lovelock on June 11^th at 2:30PM at the Pershing County Community Center

Therese Stix will attend the Lovelock session to listen and participate in the discussion.  We hope to see you there!

The Greater Idaho Movement is a fascinating and complex effort that has gained traction in recent years. This movement seeks to redraw the state boundaries. Several counties in eastern Oregon would become part of Idaho. The primary motivation behind this movement is the cultural and political differences between the rural, conservative eastern Oregon and the more urban, liberal western part of the state. 

Water: A Critical Issue in the Greater Idaho Movement

One of the critical issues at the heart of this movement is water rights. Water is a precious resource in the arid regions of eastern Oregon and Idaho. The management of water rights is crucial for agriculture, industry, and residential use. Water rights in the western United States are governed by the doctrine of prior appropriation, which essentially means “first in time, first in right.” This doctrine has been the foundation of water law in both Oregon and Idaho for over a century. However, the implementation and management of these rights can vary significantly between states.

In Oregon, water rights are managed by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). The state has a comprehensive water management plan that includes strict regulations on water usage, conservation efforts, and environmental protections. In addition, OWRD has ceded its application processes in large part to the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW). These regulations can sometimes be viewed as burdensome by farmers and ranchers in eastern Oregon. They feel that their needs are not adequately represented in the state’s policies.

Idaho, on the other hand, has a more fluid approach to water management. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) oversees water rights at the State level, but there is generally more local control and flexibility in how water is allocated and used.  Additional agencies, such as state fish and wildlife do not oversee or inform IDWR’s work. This approach is often seen as more favorable by those in the agricultural sector, as it allows for more adaptive management practices that can better respond to local conditions.

What if the Greater Idaho Movement Succeeds?

If the Greater Idaho Movement were to succeed, the counties that join Idaho would transition from Oregon’s water management system to Idaho’s. This shift could have several implications:

1. Regulatory Changes: Farmers and ranchers in these counties might experience a reduction in regulatory burdens, allowing for more flexible water usage. This could lead to increased agricultural productivity and economic benefits for the region.
2. Water Allocation: The change in state governance could also impact how water is allocated among different users. Idaho’s system might provide more opportunities for local stakeholders to influence water management decisions. That could lead to more equitable distribution of water resources.
3. Environmental Concerns: While the transition might benefit agricultural users, there could be concerns about the environmental impacts of less stringent water regulations. A critical challenge will be ensuring that water usage remains sustainable and that ecosystems are protected.
4. Interstate Water Compacts: The movement could also affect existing interstate water compacts and agreements. These legal agreements govern the allocation of water from shared rivers and aquifers between states. Any changes in state boundaries would require renegotiation of these compacts to ensure fair distribution of water resources.

Conclusion

The Greater Idaho Movement is more than just a political and cultural shift. It has significant implications for water rights and resource management. As the movement continues to evolve, it will be essential to carefully consider how these changes will impact the people and ecosystems that depend on water in this region. Balancing the needs of agricultural users with environmental sustainability will be key to ensuring a prosperous future for all involved.

Schroeder Law Offices works with clients in both Idaho and Oregon as well as Nevada, Washington and Utah.

House Bill 3419: What’s Next for Well Monitoring and Reporting?

Oregon House Bill 3419  has the potential to restrict how much water homeowners can pump from their exempt (non-permitted) wells. It requires meters to record water usage. This bill also focuses on constructing consistency in how water use is measured and reported, in hopes to refine water enforcement procedures.

Most types of water use require the user to obtain a permit from the Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”). But Oregon law currently considers domestic use of up to 15,000 gallons of groundwater per day, including irrigation of lawns and non-commercial gardens less than one-half acre, exempt from permitting and reporting requirements. This could change under HB 3419.

Public Feedback

Public response to House Bill 3419 has been mixed. While environmental protection organizations like WaterWatch of Oregon, the Nature Conservancy, and the Oregon Environmental Council support the passage of House Bill 3419, many individuals have provided public comments in opposition. The Oregon Water Resources Congress (“OWRC”) also opposes HB 3419, stating, “We are not opposed generally to measurement and reporting… However [HB 3419] would provide OWRD with overly broad authority that will only compete with and undermine other ongoing water management efforts.”

Mark Owens, Oregon State Representative for House District 60, has said he is opposed to any bill that would establish constraints for rural residents who rely on exempt wells for their domestic water. House District 60 includes Baker, Grant, Harney, Lake, Malheur, and part of Deschutes Counties in central and eastern Oregon. Many residents of these rural counties rely on private wells to obtain domestic water. Owens’ aim is to make things less complicated for Oregonians. H wants to ensure access to secure and reliable water for their homes. He spoke about possibly setting up a fund to support repairs and replacements of wells that have been affected by droughts, fires, and contamination.

Conclusion

It is important that well owners, especially those who rely on exempt wells for domestic use, maintain awareness of potential rules and regulations that could require additional procedure concerning their water access. House Bill 3419 is currently in front of the Oregon House Committee on Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources, and Water. There are no scheduled hearings on this bill, and the deadline to submit testimony has expired. We will continue to monitor the progress of HB 3419, so check back for updates! If you’re interested in learning more about ongoing water right issues, visit our the Schroeder Law Offices, PC blog!

More Information about House Bill 3419

1. Oregon Well Owners Face New Restrictions: State Proposes Controversial Monitoring Plan – The Hillsboro Herald
2. Farmers fret water meter mandate (HB 3419 hearing) | Oregon Catalyst
3. Good News – The Oregon Legislature is Not Trying to Meter Your Domestic Well – Oregon Property Owners Association
4. Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources, and Water House 2025 Regular Session – Oregon Legislative Information System
5. OWRC Testimony

USCID Call for Papers – Consider Participating!

The United States Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (USCID www.uscid.org) is excited to announce the call for papers for its Annual Conference, scheduled to take place from October 21-24, 2025, in Reno, Nevada. This year’s conference will focus on the critical issues surrounding water supply and demand, emphasizing sustainable basin water management in the face of increasing scarcity and competing uses.

Conference Overview

The USCID Conference in Reno aims to address the challenges of water planning and management, particularly in the context of agricultural, urban, and environmental demands. With changing weather patterns, regulatory constraints, and the evolving science of hydrology and hydrogeology, the conference will explore innovative solutions to ensure reliable water supplies and effective resource management.

Call for Papers

USCID invites abstracts for papers and presentations that align with the conference’s themes. Authors can submit abstracts for either a 20-minute oral presentation with a paper or a 15-minute oral presentation without a paper. Accepted papers will be included in the Conference Proceedings, providing a valuable resource for attendees and the broader water management community.

Key Topics

The conference will cover a wide range of topics, including but not limited to:

1. Basin Water Management and Governance

   • Basin supply and demand management
   • Regional management governance structures
   • Implementing sustainable groundwater basin rules

2. Competing Uses of Water

   • Shared facilities
   • Surface water/groundwater exchanges

     • Recycling and wastewater reuse

3. Water Planning

   • Integrating regional water resources
   • Reservoir management and operation modeling
   • Stakeholder involvement

4. Water Supply and Demand Management

   • Urban and agricultural irrigation conservation
   • Deficit irrigation and drought management
   • Salinity and water quality management

5. Water Transfers

   • Water rights concerns
   • Improvements in agricultural and urban water transfers
   • Environmental permitting and policy

6. Technologies

   • Evapotranspiration and consumptive use
   • Flow measurement and SCADA systems
   • Precision irrigation and smart device applications

Submission Guidelines

Authors are encouraged to submit a 250-300 word abstract, including the paper or presentation title, author names and affiliations, and contact information. Abstracts should be submitted as a .doc or .docx file to megan@agamsi.com by May 1, 2025.

Important Dates

• Abstracts Due: May 1, 2025
• Notification to Authors: May 15, 2025
• Draft Papers Due: July 15, 2025
• Comments to Authors: August 15, 2025
• Final Papers Due: September 15, 2025
• Conference Dates: October 21-24, 2025

Join us in Reno for an engaging and informative conference that promises to advance the field of irrigation and drainage. We look forward to your contributions and participation in this important event. For more information, visit USCID’s call for papers website.

Oregon Snowpack: A Winter Wonderland in 2025

With the first day of spring just around the corner, Oregon’s snowpack is now a topic of significant interest and importance. This year, Oregon has experienced remarkable snowfall, leading to a snowpack that is not only above average but also the best in the western United States. What does this record-breaking year mean for the region?

A Record-Breaking Oregon Snowpack

As of February 2025, Oregon’s snowpack has reached an impressive 144% of normal levels with all watersheds at 77% or higher of median snow-water levels. The John Day, Malheur, Harney, and Lake County-Goose Lake watersheds all have more than 150% of median snow-water levels. The levels across the state look very similar to those in 2019.

The accumulation is due to a series of cold winter storms providing large amounts of snow across the state. The heavy snowfall has been a welcome sight for many, especially after several years of fluctuating snowpack that raised concerns about water supply and drought conditions. Oregon has enjoyed a successful winter ski season. Skiing is expected to continue far into the spring, with many ski areas near or at 100 inches of snow.

Implications for Water Supply

This substantial Oregon snowpack is not only enjoyed for recreational winter snow uses. It also bodes well for water users during the rest of the year. The current snowpack levels are a positive sign for Oregon’s water supply. With snowpack levels well above average, the state is better positioned to meet water demands for agricultural and recreational uses, especially with irrigation seasons starting in March. The ample snowpack reduces the immediate risk of drought, providing a buffer against dry conditions that could arise later in the year.

Looking Ahead

While the current Oregon snowpack levels are encouraging, it is important to remain cautious. In recent years, strong snowpacks have melted too quickly due to early warm temperatures in spring and summer. This faster melting reduces the snowpack’s ability to prevent wildfires. It is wise to approach the season with caution and to be well-prepared.

All in all, this is good news for Oregon water users, and we will hope for a bountiful summer.

The 2025 Nevada Legislative Session has begun. It’s looking like a busy session for water bills. Four bills caught my attention and we thought we should share them with you!

Assembly Bill 134

AB 134 proposes to amend NRS Chapter 533 to allow owners of a perfected water rights to submit water conservation plans to the State Engineer for approval. The goal of the bill is to “promote and encourage the conservation, development, augmentation and efficient use of the waters of this State through the use of practices for the voluntary conservation of water, including, without limitation, water conservation plans, crop rotation or conversion, improved irrigation practices and reductions in surface and seepage losses of water at the place of use of water.”

The main perk for those with approved conservation plans is that their water rights are not subject to abandonment pursuant to NRS 534.090.

Assembly Bill 104 and Senate Bill 36

AB 104 proposes to establish an Account for Retiring Water Rights and the Nevada Voluntary Water Rights Retirement Program (“Program”) to be administered by the Director of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (“Director”).

The Program would allow the Director to accept applications for the purchase and retirement of water rights until June 30, 2035. Under this proposal, the State Engineer will retire the water rights that are purchased and the water will not be available for appropriation. SB 36 has nearly identical provisions but calls the Program the Nevada Water Buy-Back Initiative.

Also contained in AB 104 is a section proposing to change the name of temporary permits to revocable permits. There is also a section prohibiting domestic well drilling if the property is within 1,250 feet of a public entity service line.

Assembly Bill 265

            AB 265 proposes to amend NRS Chapter 533 to require the Nevada Division of Water Resources to notify water appropriation applicants if a committee is assigned to review the application. The bill places deadlines on the committee to complete the application review within 30 days after the protest deadline passes if no protests are timely filed, and within 60 days if a protest is received. The bill goes on to set deadlines for the State Engineer to act on other processes including reviewing applications for water use, extension of time applications, and confirming reports of conveyance to update water right ownership inforamation.

Lastly, under AB 265, the State Engineer will be required to notify a permit holder 30 days before the due date that a permit will be held in cancellation if a proof of completion of work or proof of application of water to beneficial use is not filed.

Take Aways from the 2025 Legislative Session

            These bills illustrate the increasing necessity to conserve water resources in Nevada while safeguarding senior priority water rights. Additionally, AB 265 addresses the increasing concern over the backlog in the State Engineer’s office. It sets deadlines to allow for the prompt administration of water rights. Now it will be up to the State Legislature and the Governor to decide if these bills will become law.

TAXING FARMERS BASED ON WATER AVAILABILITY

Attorney Laura Schroeder recently returned from Egypt.  She shares in this article the use of nilometers in ancient Egypt that offers a fascinating intersection of law, administration, and environmental science. These devices were pivotal in determining tax rates based on the annual flooding of the Nile River, highlighting the sophisticated legal and administrative systems of one of history’s most enduring civilizations.

Nilometers remained in use from the pharaonic period until the Aswan High Dam rendered them obsolete in the 1960s

Legal Framework and Taxation

In ancient Egypt, taxation was deeply tied to the Nile’s water levels, as measured by nilometers. These structures were essentially water gauges. They determined whether the annual flood would result in a prosperous harvest or a poor yield. A higher flood level indicated fertile soil and abundant crops, leading to higher taxes. Lower levels signaled drought and reduced taxes. The measurements were critical for setting equitable tax rates, ensuring that farmers were taxed based on their actual agricultural output potential.

Administrative Oversight

The process of measuring water levels and determining taxes was carefully regulated. During the Abbasid period, for example, nilometer readings were supervised by judges appointed by the Sultan to ensure accuracy and fairness. This reflects an early form of legal oversight to prevent corruption or manipulation in tax collection.

Broader Implications

Nilometers also held symbolic and spiritual significance. Often located within temples or adorned with Quranic verses during later periods, they represented the divine connection between the Nile’s bounty and societal prosperity. This dual role underscores how legal systems in ancient Egypt intertwined with religious and cultural practices.

Conclusion

The nilometer exemplifies how ancient Egyptian rulers utilized natural phenomena to create a structured taxation system. It not only ensured revenue for public projects but also established a legal precedent for fair taxation based on measurable criteria. This innovative approach resonates with modern principles of tax law, where income or productivity often determines tax liability.  Attorney Schroeder suggests that a similar approach to taxation of farmers in the US might be more appropriate!

Is Specialized Training for Nevada Water Judges Working?

Most agree that the Nevada Supreme Court’s initiative to provide specialized training for Nevada water judges was a significant step towards improving the adjudication of water law cases in the state. However, the jury is still out when it comes to determining the overall success of the program. This initiative, launched as a pilot program in January 2024, aims to enhance the expertise of district court judges in handling complex water law issues.

Pilot Program for Training Nevada Water Judges

The Water Judges Pilot Program follows extensive research and recommendations by the Commission to Study the Adjudication of Water Law Cases. The program mandates that the 15 judges who have completed the specialized training, preside over water law cases. This training is designed to cover key topics in water law and technical issues, ensuring that judges are well-equipped to handle the intricacies of these cases.

The certification process involves judges submitting an application and completing a training program. Supreme Court Rule 18, which outlines the criteria for water law cases and the assignment process. governs the program.  Nevada looks to the Dividing the Waters[2] program at the National Judicial College for curriculum and will require these Nevad water judges to undergo continued legal education. So far the program has not heard many cases, suspecting the reprieve in drought and abundant water supply in the last few years as correlating with the reduced number in cases coming before court. However, the program will likely reconvene at the end of the three-year pilot time period to review the statistics to assess the success of the program.

Justice Parraguirre’s Insights at the NWRA Conference

At the recent Nevada Water Resources Association (NWRA) conference, Justice Ron Parraguirre of the Nevada Supreme Court delivered a keynote presentation highlighting the progress and challenges of the pilot program for Nevada water judges. Justice Parraguirre emphasized the importance of specialized training in ensuring efficient and consistent administration of water law cases. Justice Parraguirre also discussed the ongoing efforts to refine the training curriculum based on feedback from Judges and stakeholders.  Currently, the program is aimed at NRS Chapter 533 use in management of water use, regulating and understanding surface water and groundwater connections, water rights adjudications, and understanding vested and subordinate water rights, among others. 

Justice Parraguirre’s presentation underscored efforts in the judiciary and at NWRA in addressing water law and technical issues. He praised the NWRA for its role in providing valuable resources and training opportunities for all water professionals. Justice Parraguirre advised that the one thing water experts can do better is teach!  Being able to break down concepts and teach those in the court room is key to the successful and consistent administration of water cases.

For more on Nevada Water Law see Nevada Archives – Schroeder Law Offices, PC

Integrated Water Resources Strategy: Oregon IWRS

IWRS means Oregon’s statewide Integrated Water Resources Strategy. On November 12, 2024, six Oregon departments hosted a public meeting to discuss IWRS priorities for the next five to 7 years. Sponsoring departments included:

• Water Resources Department
• Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Department of Environmental Quality
• Department of Agriculture
• Watershed Enhancement Board
• Department of Land Conservation and Development

Over 50 people attended both online and in person in Salem, including Schroeder Law Offices, to learn what the agencies believed were the most important actions for the state to take related to water quality and quantity concerns.

What IWRS Is

The IWRS is a state-wide initiative for inter-agency communication to understand Oregon’s instream and out-of-stream water needs. Governor Kotek requested a pause on IWRS after the agencies issued the first draft of the priorities since many agencies were transitioning to new directors.

The IWRS has 47 required actions, and the agencies decided to break these actions down into three “buckets”. They are titled 1) Prevent Things from Getting Worse; 2) Optimize: Highest and Best Use; and 3) Help Communities Prepare and Adapt.

The first bucket concerns sustainable practices and limiting and reducing contamination of water resources. The second bucket concerns prioritizing innovative water solutions and data-driven projects for decision-making. The third bucket concerns informing the public of what the “water future” looks like, helping economies adapt to water changes, and increasing volunteer-based incentive programs for target priorities. The public had the opportunity to comment on the agencies’ priorities. They provided questions and feedback as well.

Commenters questioned the lack of enforcement language within the goals from the Department of Environmental Quality, such as in the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area. This area, referred to as the “LUBGWMA,” experiences challenges with nitrate levels in domestic wells that are not connected to a community or municipal system. Commenters also questioned the scale of the projects to ensure the projects could be feasibly implemented in all communities.

Next Draft Coming in January, 2025

The agencies will publish the next draft for the IWRS in January 2025 which will include these priority areas. The public can submit comments to the draft IWRS. If you have interest in these projects or concerns, be sure to submit comments to the agencies for their consideration. After public review and comment, the agencies will present the draft to the Water Resources Commission in March 2025 for a workshop discussion. The agencies expect to provide the Final Draft of the IWRS to Water Resources Commission in late Spring 2025, with a hope of official adoption in June 2025.

On September 17th, 2024, the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) implemented new groundwater rules that have sparked significant debate. While these rules aim to promote sustainable water use, they also raise several concerns that merit discussion.

Arbitrary Power and Political Influence

One of the primary criticisms of the new groundwater rules is that they grant the OWRD considerable discretionary power. The department can now deny groundwater permits based on criteria that some argue are too subjective and potentially influenced by the political climate at the time of filing. This level of control could lead to inconsistent decision-making, where permit approvals or denials hinge more on the prevailing political winds than on objective, scientific assessments.

New Groundwater Rules: Development by Unelected Officials

Another contentious point is that these rules were developed by unelected officials. The process involved various advisory committees and consultations, but ultimately, the decision-making power rested with individuals who are not directly accountable to the public. This has led to concerns about transparency and the democratic legitimacy of the rule-making process.

Influence of Powerful Non-Profit Organizations

The involvement of powerful non-profit organizations in shaping the new groundwater rules has also been a point of contention. Groups such as the Oregon Environmental Council and WaterWatch of Oregon played significant roles in the advisory process. While these organizations advocate for important environmental causes, their influence raises questions about whose interests are being prioritized. Critics argue that the rules may reflect the agendas of these groups more than the needs of all Oregonians.

Balancing Conservation and Agriculture

Water conservation is undeniably crucial, especially in the face of climate change and increasing water scarcity. However, the new groundwater rules must also consider the needs of Oregon’s robust agriculture industry. Agriculture is a vital part of the state’s economy, and overly restrictive water regulations could harm farmers and ranchers who rely on groundwater for irrigation and livestock.

Conclusion

While the new groundwater rules aim to address critical issues of sustainability and resource management, they also present several challenges. The potential for arbitrary decision-making, the influence of unelected officials and powerful non-profits, and the impact on the agriculture industry are all significant concerns that need to be addressed. Moving forward, it is essential to find a balanced approach that ensures water conservation while respecting the diverse needs of all Oregonians.

At Schroeder Law Offices, P.C., we can assist you in navigating the new and evermore complicated water laws in Oregon. Please contact us at (503) 281-4100 if you have any questions. Or for more about water rights in Oregon see this article.

At Schroeder Law Offices we are dedicated to providing exceptional service to our clients. Leveraging advanced technology like TABS3, NetDocuments, Zoom, and Microsoft 365 helps us achieve this goal. They streamline our operations and enhance client satisfaction.

TABS3: Leveraging Technology in Practice Management

TABS3 is a comprehensive practice management software that benefits clients in several ways:

• Efficient Billing and Accounting: Automated billing cycles and detailed financial reports ensure transparency and accuracy. You always know where your case stands financially.
• Accurate Time Tracking: We meticulously track every billable hour, ensuring fair and accurate billing for the time dedicated to your case.
• Organized Case Management: TABS3 centralizes all case-related information, allowing us to manage your case files, deadlines, and communications efficiently.

NetDocuments: Leveraging Technology in Document Management

NetDocuments is our go-to solution for managing legal documents securely and efficiently:

• Secure Cloud Storage: Your documents are stored securely in the cloud, making them accessible from anywhere, which is valuable for remote consultations and collaboration.
• Robust Security and Compliance: NetDocuments protects your sensitive information with top-notch encryption and access controls, ensuring compliance with industry standards.
• Seamless Collaboration: Our team can collaborate on documents in real-time, leading to faster turnaround times and reduced risk of errors.
• Quick Document Retrieval: Advanced search capabilities allow us to locate your documents quickly, ensuring prompt responses to your needs.

Zoom: Leveraging Technology for Remote Consultations

Zoom enables us to connect with you no matter where you are:

• Virtual Meetings: We can hold virtual consultations, making it convenient for you to discuss your case without needing to travel.
• Secure Communication: Zoom provides secure, encrypted communication, ensuring your privacy during our meetings.
• Flexibility: Whether you’re at home or on the go, Zoom allows us to stay connected and keep you updated on your case.
• Integrated Phone, Meetings and Webinars: Zoom handles all our voice and video from internal and external phone calls to client meetings to webinars.

Microsoft 365: Leveraging Technology for Productivity and Collaboration

Microsoft 365 is an essential tool for our daily operations:

• Email Management: Outlook integrates seamlessly with NetDocuments so that we can manage our communications efficiently, ensuring timely responses and organized email history.
• Document Creation and Sharing: Tools like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint allow us to create, edit, and share documents.

Conclusion

At Schroeder Law Offices embracing technology is essential to delivering the best possible service to our clients. TABS3, NetDocuments, Zoom, and Microsoft 365 are just a few examples of how we leverage advanced tools to manage our practice more effectively. By using these technologies, we can focus on what we do best—advocating for you and achieving the best outcomes for your legal matters.

Thank you for trusting us with your legal needs. If you have any questions about how we use technology to your benefit please call or email.

The United States Committee for Irrigation and Drainage (USCID) fall conference registration is now open. www.uscid.org  As the current president of this organization, I’m letting my “friends of Schroeder Law Offices” know what we are up to when not working in the office representing our clients.

What is USCID?

The USCID is a non-profit organization dedicated to sharing and collaborating on all water issues. These especially relate to planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of irrigation, drainage and flow control works. They particularly include agricultural economics; water law; and environmental and social issues affecting irrigated agriculture.  As you might tell, given my upbringing in irrigated agriculture, these are all areas near and dear to me.  With all the challenges facing water use in the United States, this organization of scientists, engineers, extension representatives, irrigation managers, agency representatives, policy makers, and product engineers and manufactures, is the place to be when it comes to learning about cutting edge developments and studies in handing the ever-increasing water scarcity. 

At Schroeder Law Offices, we strive to understand water use in all facets from growing food and fiber and supplying safe water supplies for our clients. Participating in these organizations it keeps us in touch with cutting edge ideas and solutions that help us better serve our clients. 

The USCID Fall Conference

The USCID Fall Conference, on Implementing Sustainable Water Management, is open for registration.  The conference this year will be in Sacramento, October 1-4^th.  Please consider joining this important organization and attending our conference.  In addition to the “conference room” presentations providing valuable educational opportunities, the USCID planning committee has lined up some great tours.  Tuesday morning’s tour will head to Vacaville and visit the Solano Irrigation District.  Here we will learn what SID has done to modernize its irrigation system to bring more accurate delivery to its constituents. 

Friday’s tour, will head to Oroville Dam and Lundberg Family Farms.  Oroville is the tallest earth-fill dams in the United States at 770 feet high and 6920 feet long.  We experience the dam up close to learn about the spillway failure in 2017 and its emergency recovery and repair.  We will also learn about the importance of the dam in supporting agriculture, power generation and flood control. At Lundberg Family Farms, we will learn about the farming operations for various varieties of rice. We will learn about the Lundberg Family’s dedication to sustainability in crop nourishment and use of water.  Lundberg is a regenerative organic certified operation and has a goal of moving its organic operation to 100% regenerative organic certified by 2027.

Along with the tours, the planning committee has accepted around 30 presentations to bring you a well rounded conference focusing on Implementing Sustainable Water Management.  I am especially interested in learning some of these sustainable water management strategies as I hope to take them back to Nevada as we struggle with implementing a conjunctive management system on the Humboldt River.

We hope to see you there!

Therese

Issues that need Water Attorneys

Water right attorneys focus their practice on complex and important issues in Oregon, where all water belongs to the public. Anyone who wants to use water from any source, whether surface or groundwater, must obtain a permit or license from the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), unless they qualify for a statutory exemption. In Oregon, water rights of use are based on the principle of prior appropriation. This means the first person to use water or apply for a permit has the senior priority. Under the pure prior appropriate system and in times of shortage, water users with the senior priority can demand the water specified in their right of use, regardless of the rights of use held by junior users.

Water users in Oregon include farms, vineyards, nurseries, livestock enterprises, dairies, single residences, homeowner’s associations and developments, cities, commercial businesses, and other entities. They may need legal assistance for various reasons, including obtaining, transferring, or defending water rights; complying with health and utility regulations; resolving disputes or enforcement actions by regulating agencies such as the Oregon Department of Water Resources; conducting due diligence for transactions or developments; and participating in rulemaking or legislative processes.

For a more detailed discussion of Oregon water rights, see this article. Or visit our blog.

What to Look For in a Water Attorney

When looking for an attorney for water rights in Oregon, there are several factors to consider, such as:

• Experience and expertise: Water law is a specialized and dynamic field that requires a thorough knowledge of the relevant statutes, rules, case law, and administrative procedures. An attorney who has experience and expertise in water law can help clients navigate the complex and often changing legal landscape. Practiced attorneys can provide effective representation and advice. Some indicators of experience and expertise include the attorney’s education, credentials, publications, memberships, awards, and testimonials.
• Fees and costs: Water law matters can be time-consuming and costly, depending on the complexity and scope of the issue. An attorney who is transparent and reasonable about their fees and costs can help the client budget and plan accordingly. Some attorneys may offer different fee arrangements, such as hourly, flat, contingent, or hybrid. This would depend on the nature and circumstances of the case. The client should discuss and agree on the fee arrangement with the attorney before hiring them.
• Reputation and rapport: Water law issues can be contentious and sensitive, especially when they involve competing or conflicting interests. An attorney who has a good reputation and rapport with the OWRD, other agencies, courts, and stakeholders can help the client achieve a favorable and timely resolution. Moreover, an attorney who is trustworthy, respectful, and professional can establish a rapport with the client and understand their goals and expectations.

Ways to Find an Oregon Water Attorney

To find an attorney for water rights in Oregon, the client can use various sources, such as:

• Referrals: The client can ask for recommendations from people they know and trust, such as friends, family, colleagues, or acquaintances, who have dealt with water law issues or hired an attorney for water rights in Oregon. Referrals can provide firsthand information and feedback about the attorney’s performance and personality.
• Online: Just use one of the various search engines like Google or Bing.
• Websites: The client can visit the websites of attorneys or law firms that specialize in water law in Oregon, such as Schroeder Law Offices. These websites often provide detailed information about their services, experience, expertise, and contact information. Websites can also showcase the attorney’s portfolio, publications, and achievements.
• Consultations: The client can contact and schedule consultations with potential attorneys for water rights in Oregon. Most will offer a free hour either by phone, Zoom, or in person, to discuss their specific issue and needs. Consultations are a good method to evaluate the attorney’s suitability and compatibility. Consultations also allow the client to ask questions and clarify any doubts or concerns they may have.

In Conclusion

In conclusion, finding an attorney for water rights in Oregon can be a challenging task. By considering the factors mentioned above and using the sources suggested, the client can make an informed and confident decision.

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. The information provided is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The client should consult with a licensed attorney in their jurisdiction before taking any legal action.

For more information please call +1 (800) 574-8813, use our convenient form, or visit the Water Law Blog.

See Also what to expect when you call a water attorney.

The Clean Water Act’s extension of what waters it attempts to regulate is leaves WOTUS a confusing legacy. Does it apply to wetlands? If so, what if wetlands stand alone and don’t adjoin navigable waterways? The courts have been adjudicating questions like these for year. But earlier this year the US Supreme Court gave a definitive answer – for now.

What Happened?

There is no denying the positive changes that the Clean Water Act has rendered as once flammable waters again being fishable, boatable, and even swimmable. Even so, the definition of “waters of the United States,” that defines the reach of the federal government’s regulation of water, is controversial. On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)how “waters” are to be defined for purposes of the CWA.

Background

To understand Sackett, we must begin with looking at Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Rapanos, found there are two tests to define “waters of the United States.”

• The “Plurality Test,” a two-prong test, that defines water of the United States as “(1) a relatively permanent body of water (2) connected to traditional interstate navigable waters.”
• The broader “significant nexus test.” Under this test “the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands, significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters understood as “navigable,” are considered among the “waters of the US.”

The Sackett Decision

These two conflicting tests did not resolve the issue.

But now the May 2023, Supreme Court decision determined that the “Waters of the United States” extend “only to geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘stream, oceans, rivers, and lakes’ and to adjacent wetlands that are ‘indistinguishable’ from bodies of water due to a ‘continuous surface connection’.” Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322, 1336 (2023). This decision adopted the plurality test from Rapanos reasoning that the significant-nexus text could grant endless jurisdiction and importantly interfere with State jurisdiction. 

WOTUS as a Confusing Legacy

The Supreme Court’s decision admitted there is obvious need for exceptions to it’s bright line rule such as when there are interruptions in surface connection because of low tide or dry spells to disrupt “continuous surface connection.”  Thus, it is evident that wetlands have not seen their last day in court.

As an ever evolving body, water law can be a confusing field. Here at Schroeder Law Offices, we help our clients by finding answers and making the complex appear simple. If you have any questions about how this affects your water rights, please contact us at (503) 281-4100 or m.jones@water-law.com.