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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Clerk Jakob Wiley will be presenting on unitization approaches to aquifer governance at the next Groundwater Advisory Committee (“GWAC”) meeting held June 30, 2017. He will be presenting his research on voluntary aquifer governance agreements, focusing on aquifer governance rather than groundwater management. The approach is the topic of his graduate thesis as part of his master’s degree, as well as his portion of an upcoming book co-authored with Dr. Todd Jarvis titled Collective Aquifer Governance: Dispute Prevention for Groundwater and Aquifers through Unitization, currently being prepared for the Cambridge University Press.

Jakob’s presentation will show how groundwater governance has “missed the aquifer for the wells,” focusing attention on groundwater levels and failing to incorporate other aquifer resources, such as storage potential, heat exchange, water quality, or future aquifer uses like carbon sequestration. With some aquifers, the focus may lead to damage to the reservoir (See https://ngwa.confex.com/ngwa/renew08/techprogram/P5225.HTM).

Unitization techniques look at the aquifer as a whole, encourage subsurface exploration, and may create “aquifer communities” that create a regional identity with the aquifer. (See https://www.scribd.com/document/112436071/Jarvis-W-Todd-In-search-of-a-New-Identity-Good-Water-Neighbors). Contract approaches to groundwater governance have been seen internationally, but have yet to be clearly seen in the United States relating to groundwater. (Contract-based approaches are common in other natural resource areas, like the recent Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the sage grouse, see http://www.conservationhabitat.org/local-resources/Harney-County-Sage-Grouse-CCAA/36004/). Jakob will bring these examples to the GWAC meeting and present the approach as a possible addition to Oregon’s groundwater governance toolbox.

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

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

Schroeder Law Offices is excited to announce that J.D. Paralegal Lindsay Thane passed the Oregon State Bar, and will be licensed to practice law in Oregon upon her swearing in ceremony scheduled for May 18^th, moving into the position of Associate Attorney.

Lindsay joined Schroeder Law Offices in their Portland, Oregon office in 2016 after graduating from the University of Montana School of Law. Lindsay is an avid runner and enjoys competing in local road races. She loves being outdoors hiking with friends and family. Lindsay has also spent many summers water skiing on Flathead Lake near her home town in Montana.

The issue of updating ownership of water rights of use continues to rear its ugly head in the context of water right forfeiture proceedings. I can’t stress enough how important it is in Nevada to update ownership records with the Nevada Division of Water Resources. Currently, NRS 533.384 requires buyer to file ownership update information with the State Engineer.

Thus, when buying property, it is not enough to record your deed with the county, you must also update the records for water rights of use with the Nevada Division of Water Resources by filing a report of conveyance and abstract of title (these are specific forms with instructions available on the NDWR website). If there is a title issue that might take you some time or assistance to sort out, then file a Request for Correspondence (another form) with NDWR so you at least receive some kind of notice as to matters relating to your water rights. Don’t miss these important notices putting your water rights of use in jeopardy by failing to update ownership records!

Some title issues that come up in Reports of Conveyance and Abstracts of Title include deeds that inadvertently do not transfer all the property, deeds that have different names or entities thus causing additional supporting research to show they are one-in-the-same, having to research title back to the original water right holder, and having to sift through probate documents to show a transfer in ownership, to name a few. Regardless of the issue that needs resolving, now is the time to diligently check your rights of use and ensure you are in compliance with NRS 533.384.

by Lisa Kane and Therese Ure

The 2017 Nevada Legislative Session is currently in motion; the 79th legislative session began on February 6th and will continue through June of 2017. Meetings are being held daily by the senate and assembly committees as they review proposed changes to Nevada legislation. There are several already-proposed bills on water law that may affect water rights users in the state (click here for a more comprehensive list), however, a couple of new bills have been introduced in the past week that seek to address different water-related matters.

Assembly Bill 209 (AB 209), proposed by Assemblyman James Oscarson of Nye County, is drafted to address issues with extensions on groundwater rights and forfeiture prevention. The bill seeks to revise provisions concerning water law in the State of Nevada that would require the State Engineer to, under certain circumstances, extend the time necessary to work a forfeiture of certain water rights. The full text for this proposed bill can be found here.

Senate Bill 134 (SB 134), proposed by Senator Pete Goicoechea of Eureka County and Senator Aaron Ford of Clark County, was also newly introduced in the past week and focuses on providing legislative direction to the State Engineer in regards to water applicants and conflicts with existing water rights. Specifically, SB 134 would authorize the State Engineer to determine if such a conflict exists and if so, to impose a monitoring, management and mitigation plan upon applicants whose requested use conflicts with existing rights. The bill also requires that conflicts be eliminated in order for the water use application to be permitted. The full text for this proposed bill can be found here. While the current water law already requires the State Engineer to evaluate and not approve applications that conflict with existing rights, this legislation add the ability to impose monitoring, management, and mitigation plans (aka “3M Plans”) as a way to offset conflicts.

The Nevada State Legislature’s website provides session information as well as bill draft requests, fact sheets, bill text and further information. The Legislature’s calendar also provides links to daily meetings and allows the public to view live sessions across the state. To keep apprised of bill progress or view active work session agendas visit the legislature website at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/.

The upcoming 2017 Nevada Legislative Session includes proposed water law changes that could affect water rights users across the state. The 79th legislative session, which starts on February 6, 2017 and ends on June 5, 2017, contains a number of proposed water law changes. It appears there will be four senate bills submitted by the Nevada State Engineer and Nevada Division of Water Resources during the session, as well as five bills from the Nevada Legislative Committee to Study water, and five bills from individual legislators and committees.

The four senate bills to be introduced to the 2017 legislative session that include potential changes to water law in Nevada are as follows: Senate Bill 47 (SB47) proposes various changes to the appropriation of water; Senate Bill 51 (SB51) proposes various changes to the adjudication of vested water rights; and Senate Bills 73 and 74 (SB73 and SB74) propose the revision of various provisions relating to water rights and use in the State of Nevada. Any pre-filed bills, which include the senate bills listed above, are available for public viewing on the Nevada Legislature’s website at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/79th2017/Reports/Prefiled.cfm. By clicking on the link for the proposed bill, users can view the full bill text as introduced to the Senate as well as the bill’s history of hearings or votes as the session moves along. These bills are also referred to the Senate Natural Resources Committee for review.

While proposed bills could bring changes to water law at a statewide level in Nevada, county officials and other local groups are also working to develop local water management plans. The Nevada Farm Bureau, for example, has a collected a group of interested volunteers to participate in a Water Discussion group for water management plans specific to volunteers’ areas around the state. The Bureau also continues to encourage interested parties to contact them for more information regarding such discussion. According to the Pahrump Valley Times, officials in Nye County have conducted studies on a number of wells in the Pahrump Valley that have the potential to go dry. Further, studies are ongoing in the Humboldt River Basin and being conducted by USGS and DRI. It appears scientists are looking to understand the groundwater system better.

Studies such as those being conducted in Nye County will likely continue across the state in preparation for recommendations on approval or denial of the proposed water law changes in Nevada’s 79th Legislative Session in 2017. Counties and hydrographic basins may have different needs based on appropriation and water sources available. The interested public can keep current with session information and the drafting and approval of bills as the session persists at the legislature’s website: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/. County and city papers also continue to publish information regarding more local sessions.

The Nevada Farm Bureau has adopted new and revised policies, which are available in their 2017 Policy Book. The policy positions were approved by farmer/rancher voting delegates at the general session of the 2016 Nevada Farm Bureau Annual Meeting. One important new policy adopted by the Nevada Farm Bureau relates to supporting groundwater management plans for critical management areas.

The Nevada Farm Bureau recognized that under state law, local citizens have an opportunity to propose groundwater management plans in order to bring allocated water rights of use back into balance with actual available water resources. The State Engineer has identified one water basin, Diamond Valley, as a Critical Management Area. This basin is open to Groundwater Management Plans, that can be proposed by local citizens. In the new policy, the Nevada Farm Bureau provides an outline of criteria a management plan must meet in order to obtain support of the Farm Bureau. Some key points, among others, stipulate that the proposed plan must be developed at the local level, must recognize priority of senior water right users, and must restrict the water covered by the plan from leaving the basin.

The Farm Bureau’s goal with the new policy concerning groundwater management plans is to address and provide guidance to possible changes in state water law that may come up in the next legislative session. The Farm Bureau believes this new policy will positively impact farming and ranching industries by protecting its most important resource.

Oregon Legislative Updates

A drought task force, authorized in 2016 by the Oregon Legislature, submitted their year-end report[1] to the Governor in November discussing how Oregon can better anticipate and adapt to increasingly common years of drought. Specifically, the report encourages the State to review the drought declaration process to better assist with drought response, to help communities with preparedness and resiliency, and to evaluate management options for stored water to better address instream and out-of-stream needs.

The Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) also extended reservations of water for future economic development in the Hood Basin, the Grande Ronde Basin, the Burnt River Basin, the Malheur Basin, and the Owyhee River Basin.         

Governor’s Office Updates

The Governor’s Office’s strategic initiatives for 2017 emphasize investing in water infrastructure to improve resilience and growth. Despite the decreased allocation of money to OWRD from the general fund budget, OWRD anticipates continued investment for development of instream and out-of-stream water supplies and for capital investment in sewage and water systems.

Cannabis Legalization on Water Usage

The passage of Measure 91 in Oregon has led to an increase in cannabis cultivation, part of which requires individuals who were growing cannabis before Measure 91, as well as new cannabis growers, to apply for water rights to irrigate their crop. However, only state water rights, not federal water rights, such as those under a Bureau of Reclamation contract, may be applied to irrigate cannabis. Federal water rights may be used to grow cannabis if the water is delivered from an irrigation district under a Bureau of Reclamation contract and is commingled with water under a state water right. An additional challenge is that water rights to grow cannabis will likely require a year-round water right and not simply a traditional irrigation season water right.

Upcoming Adjudications

With the Klamath Basin adjudication largely completed, OWRD announced it plans to begin adjudication of the Deer Creek Basin east of Roseburg in late 2016. OWRD will also begin two to four small adjudications in the South Coast Basin in late 2016 or early 2017.

Water Rights Auditing in Real Estate Transactions

The first day of the seminar wrapped up with a panel emphasizing the importance of determining the validity and extent of any water right that is part of a real estate transaction. The panel encouraged anyone involved in a transaction that includes water rights to request the files for any associated water rights from the applicable state department, such as OWRD or the Washington State Department of Ecology. This type of analysis is offered by Schroeder Law Offices at a flat fee. We encourage our clients to contact us for this service before any issue arises!

[1] https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/docs/HB4113/Draft_Final_Task_Force_Report_11_1_2016_Final.pdf.

In a move he hopes will ease the most arduous administrative burden faced by the Idaho Department of Water Resources, Director Gary Spackman has created the state’s largest groundwater management area, encompassing the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer (ESPA) region.

Hoping “to stop the drop” of the aquifer level, which has experienced an annual rate of decline estimated at 200,000 acre feet, Spackman signed the order designating Idaho’s 12^th GWMA. He announced the action to the Idaho Water Users Association on November 3.

His intent, Spackman said, was to bring all of the region’s water users “into the fold” with efforts to restore the aquifer. Although this was partly accomplished by the 2015 settlement agreement between ground water and surface water groups within the conjunctively managed ESPA region, users who were not members of a ground water district did not have an opportunity to take part.

“This is a tool to manage the aquifer so everyone is participating,” said Spackman, noting that the eventual management plan for the GWMA will work in cooperation with the settlement agreement. He offered no timeline for the development of the management plan, but it is expected to take at least two years.

The ESPA region GWMA extends from the upper eastern corner of the state, near Saint Anthony, to Thousand Springs near Hagerman where the ESPA discharges into the Snake River. Existing GWMAs and critical groundwater management areas — four of which located near Oakley — have been excluded from the ESPA region GWMA.

Additional information can be found on the IDWR website at http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/water-rights/ground-water-management-areas/designated.html

The International Commission on Irrigation and Draining (ICID) hosted the World Irrigation Forum (WIF) in Chiang Mai, Thailand. The 2016 conference serves as the second annual forum.

The intent of the World Irrigation Forum is to bring together all stakeholders in order to provide a platform for the world irrigation community to work to find solutions to the problems the irrigation community faces. Some of the stakeholders involved include policy makers, experts, research institutions, non-governmental organizations, and farms. The most prevalent issues the forum addresses are the depleting freshwater resources due to global warming and climate change as well as the idea of population growth in relation to food security. Through the forum, the ICID hopes to gain sustainable solution to water management for agriculture.

The World Irrigation Forum’s theme for 2016 was “Water Management in a Changing World: Role of Irrigation in Sustainable Food Production.” Under the main theme were three different sub-themes: (i) Key actors in balancing water, food, energy, and ecology, (ii) Management of climatic extremes with focus on floods and droughts, and (iii) Key and smart actions to alleviate hunger and poverty through irrigation and drainage.

The process of being selected to present at this event is a lengthy grueling process which includes multiple drafting and reviewing sessions. The abstracts and papers are viewed by a highly qualified committee which determine the selected papers for presentation. Laura and Therese both had the honor of participating in the Forum! Laura Schroeder was able to lead a presentation titled “Innovative Partnerships v. the Tragedy of the Commons” while Therese Ure was able to present a poster on “Securing Water Available for Irrigation in Times of Drought Must Move beyond Traditional Above Ground Storage Reservoirs.”

The Montana Supreme Court recently issued its decision in the long fraught dispute about exempt groundwater wells. The ruling by the Montana Supreme Court in The Clark Fork Coalition v. Tubbs, will protect the rights of senior water users from exempt groundwater wells that often deplete the amount of available surface water.[1]

The Montana Water Use Act exempts certain groundwater appropriations from the state’s permitting process if the groundwater appropriation pumps below a certain threshold and is applied to a limited area. This type of exemption is common in water use acts in other states, including Oregon and Nevada. However, Montana’s Water Use Act has an exception to the exemption, which requires a permit for any “combined appropriation” from the same source by multiple wells that exceeds 10 acre-feet per year.[2]

In 1993 the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (“DNRC”) amended its 1987 administrative rule, interpreting the term “combined appropriation” within the Water Use Act’s exception to the exemption. The DNRC’s 1993 rule (the rule in effect through the deciding of this case) stated “combined appropriation” means “groundwater developments, that are physically manifold into the same system.”[3] In application, this rule allowed groundwater wells to be drilled and as long as the appropriator did not connect the wells, even though the wells drew water from the same source, the appropriator could avoid obtaining permits for the wells and could end up appropriating a limitless amount of water from the same source.

The Montana Supreme Court determined the DNRC’s rule interpreting the term “combined appropriation” in the Montana Water Use Act improperly allowed these infinite withdrawals from the same source. The Montana Supreme Court recognized that the purpose of the Montana Water Use Act is to protect senior water right users from appropriation by junior water right users when there is not enough water physically available. Therefore, the Montana Supreme Court invalidated the 1993 rule and determined the DNRC must issue a new rule reflecting the need to recognize the effect that multiple wells drawing from the same source have on other water appropriators.

Many states, like Montana, have exemptions that allow groundwater wells to be drilled for specific purposes without going through any sort of permitting process to determine if the well will have an effect on water availability in the region. Additionally, many states, Nevada being one, continue to manage groundwater and surface water as two separate systems, rather than through conjunctive management. The failure to recognize the interconnectedness of groundwater and surface water and the cumulative effect of exempt wells on water availability in a region leads to over appropriation and fails to protect senior appropriators.

Conjunctive management is continuing to gain more traction; however, there is still much discussion about how states can implement this new management approach. Schroeder Law Offices Shareholder Therese Ure will be adding her voice to the conversation at the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage’s World Irrigation Forum in Thailand, November 6th – 12th. Attorney Ure’s paper that was accepted for the Forum discusses Nevada’s failure to conjunctively manage its groundwater and surface water systems, including the effects of mine dewatering in such a disjunctive system and suggestions for creating a “dynamic” system of water management.

Make sure to stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Blog for more news about the upcoming World Irrigation Forum!

[1] The Clark Fork Coalition v. Tubbs, 2016 MT 229 (Mont. 2016).

[2] Mont. Code Ann. 85-2-306(3)(a)(iii).

[3] Admin R. M. 36.12.101(13) (1993).

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

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

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

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

Schroeder Law Offices understands it can be a bit intimidating to contact a law firm when you encounter a problem you cannot solve alone. You are not alone:  Schroeder Law receives multiple initial potential client calls every day, and our goal is to listen, understand, and meet your goal to solve a problem in a cost effective and professional manner.

Unfortunately due to liability, attorneys cannot give legal advice on your initial, first-time call.  While it can be frustrating not to receive an immediate answer to what you may presume is a “quick legal question,” attorneys can only provide answers after conflicts are checked by running them through a system check and the client as well as the general issue are approved to be addressed by the firm.  All information requested of potential clients on the initial call is necessary in order to provide the best and most ethical advice and counsel possible.

When you call Schroeder Law Offices, your call is directed to an experienced member of our staff who will collect basic information and listen to the reason for your call. Below is a short list of the kinds of questions our staff will ask in order to determine what kind of legal assistance you need and if there are any potential conflicts that our office may encounter:

1. What is your contact info (phone number, email, mailing address)?
2. Where is the property at issue located? (we prefer lot descriptions)
3. What is the reason you are seeking legal help? (legal issue or goal for the representation)
4. What are the names or the people or companies and their attorneys (if you know them) that are involved?
5. Who is or might be opposed to what you are trying to accomplish?
6. Are there any immediate deadlines that you are facing?

Once we obtain the relevant information, we will run a conflict of interest check through our digital file system to ensure that any opposing parties are not current or previous clients, confirm that current or previous clients do not own or lease property near the property of concern, there is not a present  deadline that our firm cannot meet, or involve an issue that requires expertise other than what the firm may collectively lend its experience in addressing.

After we confirm there is no conflict, we pass the information to an attorney to review and help with next steps. Based on the next steps that our attorney advises, we will call or email you.  The response may be to offer you an initial attorney call at a flat fee, hourly fee or refer you to another attorney or organization better suited for your needs.  If a flat or hourly fee is involved, and you are interested in proceeding, a proposed fee agreement will be emailed to you.

Upon receipt of the flat or hourly fee agreement, we schedule an initial client conference between you and an attorney to understand your issue more fully, provide preliminary recommendations for moving forward, and legal advice in summary.  Following the initial client conference, you will receive a summary letter of any recommendations or advice provided in the conference.  The summary letter may also include a further contract for legal services with the scope of work tailored to fit your preferred course of action given the recommendations provided.

This process can take anywhere from twenty four hours to one week after conflicts are cleared. However, we understand how important the issues you call our office about are to you and we strive to work as quickly as possible to better serve you, the client!

If you are seeking an experienced Water Law attorney, you can call our office at:

Portland: 503-281-4100

Reno: 775-786-8800

The July 2016 Nevada Lawyer Magazine focuses on drought conditions and features Schroeder Law Offices’ Attorney Therese Ure’s article, “Use It or Lose It:” for Nevada’s Water in Times of Drought. The article discusses Nevada Revised Statute 534.090, which has become known as the “Use It or Lose It Doctrine” in reference to water rights and Nevada’s forfeiture law.  As drought conditions fluctuate across the west, and particularly in arid desert states such as Nevada, statutory forfeiture provisions relating to partial forfeiture are in conflict with conservation measures such as planting crops that require less water. Click here to read more about defining the use of water and the forfeiture process in the State of Nevada, an online exclusive for Nevada Lawyer Magazine. A full copy of the July 2016 Nevada Lawyer Magazine can be found online.

Forfeiture

We’ve all heard “Use it or Lose it” referring to the Prior Appropriation System.  The use it or lose it concept is the term we use for legal forfeiture which will apply to your water rights of use depending on your jurisdiction and type of water right.  Generally, this concept requires beneficial use of water appropriated under state law over a specific time interval.  In some states (like Nevada and Oregon), “use it or lose” is statutorily controlled, the law describes when a water user must exercise their water right of use.  In Oregon both groundwater and surface water certificates require water use once for every five consecutive year time frame. ORS 540.610. In Nevada, the statute provides that only groundwater certificated uses are subject to forfeiture for non-use if not used at least once every five years.  NRS 534.090. Thus, if you last used your certificated water right of use in 2011, you best put whatever water is available for appropriation under your certificate in place for 2016!  Make sure to use it so you are not at risk of losing it!

Abandonment

Use it or lose it as defined by the water code should not be confused with abandonment, a court made doctrine that may be more broadly applied.  Abandonment will cause cancellation of a water use by intention not to use.  Intention can be established by expression as in a written document or by a physical act.  The physical act of abandonment can include placing a permanent structure over or on top of water righted lands.  If you plan to build the next industrial sized plant, packing shed, scale house, onion storage, fill in your ditch, or take out your diversion structures, etc., you should file that water use transfer or change application prior to any construction!

While this gives you the very “basic” overview of these two legal concepts, Schroeder Law Offices can provide a more detailed explanation

The debate continues on the prior appropriation system. During the 2016 Family Farm Alliance Annual Conference, the Alliance’s 2015 report on the prior appropriation doctrine raised some debate. This debate, now focusing on Nevada’s prior appropriation system, was again raised in equal vigor during the 2016 Nevada Water Resources Association annual conference. While many argue the system fundamentally works, some commenters took the stance that the prior appropriation doctrine was flawed and should be reconsidered.

One alternative suggestion presented during these discussions was to adopt the Australian Model which changes a water right to a water share, and strives to entitle these water license holders to a specific share in the available water and to take water at specific times, rates or extraction points. However a true understanding of prior appropriation provides for water use under these circumstances, with the main difference being, in a short water year, the difference class of shareholders receive different allocations. So instead of a month, day and year priority to govern who receives their water first, the Australian Model groups all users into classes of shares with perhaps 3-5 classes all together depending on the stream system. What we did not hear about was how the Australian system handles conjunctive management calls within these class-share systems.

We suspect this debate will continue throughout the western United States as climate change and the drought continue.

Co-authored by Therese A. Ure

California Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 88 into law on June 24, 2015. Part of that Bill amended the California Water Code to require that all persons who divert 10 acre-feet or more of water per year after January 1, 2016 must install a water measuring device to measure the rate of diversion (including diversion into and out of storage). Water users must report installation to the Water Board, as well as provide evidence that the measuring device is functioning properly at five-year intervals. Water users must maintain records of diversion at time intervals of one hour or less (in some cases) and total amounts of water diverted.

Annual diversion reports must be submitted to the Water Board, and the law states: “Compliance with the applicable requirements of this section is a condition of every registration, permit, or license.” The new law imposes civil fines in an amount not to exceed $500 per violation, per day, which may be enforced civilly through the superior court, or administratively by the Water Board. The Water Board will provide forms for reporting.

On January 19, 2016, the Water Board adopted emergency regulations to implement the new water measuring law. Those regulations were sent to the Office of Administrative Law for approval. Of note, the proposed regulations give the Deputy Director of the Division of Water Rights the authority to require monthly, daily, or more frequent reporting in times when there are insufficient flows to support all diversions. Additionally, the regulations propose a phased approach that takes into account the amount of water diverted, with larger diverters needing to comply with more stringent requirements than smaller diverters.

The recent drought spurred California law makers to enact this law that will mark a drastic change in the way water users operate. The Water Board reports that this new measurement, recordkeeping, and reporting law will apply to approximately 12,000 water users in California. The Water Board hopes that the new law and regulations will improve water use regulation and planning. Industry groups, including the California Cattlemen’s Association, oppose the regulations.

In Oregon, the Water Resources Department has phased in water use measuring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements into new water use permits that are issued. California’s new law and regulations impose a new condition on existing water use rights, raising red flags about regulatory takings.

For access to S.B. 88 and the draft administrative rules, visit: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/measurement_regulation/.

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