Posted on March 30, 2015
It may come as a surprise that people fight over water in soggy Oregon and Washington. To be sure, we have not experienced the same level of conflict over competing water needs as our neighbors in the southwest, but in fact the conflicts are there and the stakes are high.
Most senior water rights in the Pacific Northwest are held by agriculture, whereas the growth in demand for water is occurring in the municipal and industrial sectors . . . and at last check, fish still need flowing streams. Add to that dynamic a declining hydrograph due to climate change, and the table is set for confrontation.
Two recent cases in the Oregon Court of Appeals and a case in the Washington Supreme Court that address municipal water rights illustrate the point. A more complete discussion of these cases is in the current issue of The Water Report.
The Oregon cases arise from a 2005 statute providing special rules for extensions of time to complete development of municipal water supplies. The caption for both cases is WaterWatch of Oregon v. Water Resources Department, but one involves the City of Cottage Grove and the other a group of Clackamas River water providers. The 2005 statute provides that for the first municipal extension granted after enactment of the statute, “fish persistence” conditions must be applied to the “undeveloped portion” of the city’s water system.
By the time Cottage Grove’s extension application was considered, the city had completed work on its water system. The Oregon Water Resources Department found no “undeveloped portion” and therefore imposed no fish persistence requirements. The court overturned the extension, finding that the fish conditions must relate back to the previous extension in 1999.
The Oregon Supreme Court initially accepted review of the case, but then without explanation declared that review was “improvidently” granted and dismissed it. Thus, the case stands; legislative corrections may be forthcoming. For the moment, Cottage Grove and other similarly situated public water providers may have less water than they previously thought due to fish flow curtailments and may incur unbudgeted additional public expense.
In the Clackamas case, the court found the “fish persistence” conditions were inadequate because OWRD failed to articulate how the conditions actually protected fish. The case is now back before OWRD for further proceedings.
In Cornelius v. Washington State University, the Supreme Court came to a happier conclusion for public water providers. The issue was whether university groundwater rights identified as for “domestic” purposes were entitled to special protections afforded only to municipal purposes. The Court unequivocally held they are.
The economies of our region depend on the courts getting it right with respect to municipal water supplies. Washington public water providers can rest easier than their counterparts in Oregon after their state courts’ recent pronouncements.
Posted on March 10, 2015
In a December 2012 blog post, I discussed the tensions raised by “Water for Texas 2012 State Water Plan” between the expected population growth and available water resources in Texas. As water demand is expected to rise, existing water supplies are diminishing.
These critical water supply constraints are again brought into sharp focus by the population projections contained in a March 5, 2015 report released by the Office of State Demographer. The 40-year projections (2010 to 2050) indicate that if the migration patterns observed in Texas between 2000 and 2010 continue at the same rate, the population of Texas will double, representing a significant increase in projections contained in the 2012 State Water Plan. The projected water resource shortages will be exacerbated.
The 2012 State Water Plan, based on a 50-year horizon, projected a 2060 population of 46.3 million. New population numbers, based on the recent migration patterns, project an increase from the 2010 Census population of 25.1 million to a 2050 population of 54.4 million.
For the past 10 years, Texas experienced the largest annual population growth of any state. Will the Texas economy maintain its strength to support job growth that will attract young workers from around the country and the world? Can the associated high net migration be sustained? What will be the impact of this growth? How will the environmental impacts be anticipated and managed?
The areas of fastest growth include the areas in and around Dallas/Ft. Worth, Austin/San Antonio, and Houston. Cities in those areas are making plans to secure long-term water supplies. Will they be successful? Will regulatory changes have to be made to surface and groundwater water rights to effectively and efficiently acquire, manage, and conserve these limited water resources? Will the infrastructure be there? How will it be financed?
Will Texas have “cool, clear water”?
Posted on February 3, 2015
Lawyers who regularly practice in the realm of the Clean Water Act (the “Act”) well know that the fight causing the most widespread panic in the regulated community for many months has been the joint proposal by EPA and the Corps of Engineers to amend the definition of “Waters of the United States.” Even though the agencies jointly withdrew the proposal on January 29, 2015, water lawyers and their clients shouldn’t let their guards down, because another inevitable regulatory slugfest is coming, and it will be over water use.
In its original form in 1972, the Act contained a concise “savings clause” that was intended to keep EPA from meddling with the authority of the States to determine how water resources will be allocated for beneficial uses. Section 510(2) simply states: “Except as expressly provided in this chapter, nothing in this chapter shall be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States.”
Wyoming Senator Malcolm Wallop became very concerned that the Section 510(2) “shield” wasn’t strong enough to protect the States, so he successfully led to passage in the 1977 amendments to the Act a much more robust policy statement, which was codified as Section 101(g), as follows:
It is the policy of Congress that the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired by this chapter. It is the further policy of Congress that nothing in this chapter shall be construed to supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of water which have been established by any State. Federal agencies shall co-operate with State and local agencies to develop comprehensive solutions to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution in concert with programs for managing water resources.
On its face, the Wallop Amendment appears to be “bulletproof,” but at best it’s really just “bullet resistant.” On November 7, 1978, EPA Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management Thomas Jorling and General Counsel Joan Burnstein issued to all Regional Administrators an “interpretive memorandum,” which concluded that the Wallop Amendment does not absolutely prohibit legitimate use of the Act for water quality purposes, even if water rights and water usages allowed under State laws are negatively affected. While noting that Section 510(2) remained unchanged in the 1977 amendments, Jorling and Burnstein grounded their legal analysis principally in passages from Senator Wallop’s floor statement in support of his proposed amendment. Specifically, Senator Wallop acknowledged that implementation of water quality standards requirements, among other major features of the Act, might “incidentally” affect individual water rights, and that the purpose of his amendment was “to insure that State allocation systems are not subverted, and that effects on individual rights, if any, are prompted by legitimate and necessary water quality considerations.”
So, thus was born what could loosely be called the “legitimate and necessary” test for determining what is, or is not, an “incidental” effect on State-conferred water rights resulting from implementation of water quality programs arising under the Act. But, without further definition, the scope of this determination brings to mind another (and historic) subjective test – the language in the 1964 Supreme Court decision in the Jacobellis obscenity case, in which Mr. Justice Potter Stewart, in his Concurring Opinion, wrote: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it….”
In 1994, the Supreme Court essentially applied the Wallop Amendment test in its P.U.D. No. 1 vs. the Washington Department of Ecology decision. There, as a condition for the issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Act, the State required a proposed hydroelectric dam to pass through certain minimum flows to protect downstream fisheries. In holding for the State, the Court cited Senator Wallop’s floor statement and summarily rejected the argument that Sections 101(g) and 510(2) limit the reach of the Act to water quality issues only.
Considering the legislative history of the Wallop Amendment, the 1978 Jorling-Burnstein interpretive memorandum, and the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1994 P.U.D. No. 1 case, there is understandable angst that EPA (or anybody else, for that matter) will use one or more of the three bedrock water quality factors in Section 101(a) of the Act (i.e. chemical, physical, and biological) as offensive weapons to limit or block State water allocation proposals. Simply put, the scientific premise would be that instream ecosystems can be degraded by depleting flows below the point at which sustainability of these resources is compromised, thus causing or exacerbating a violation of the biological component of the established water quality standards at the proposed point of withdrawal. (Of course, antidegradation requirements would also be in play.)
On January 7, 2015, EPA sent to the Office of Management and Budget for regulatory review the proposed Final Rule in the recent Water Quality Standards Program rulemaking, and EPA projects that the Final Rule will be published in May 2015. To say the very least, these major changes will make even more vexing the already difficult quantity-quality, federal-state tensions over how water use allocation decisions are made at the State level.
To close this review, it must be noted that, as mentioned in the 1978 Jorling-Burnstein interpretive memorandum, some States have water allocation programs in which the impacts on water quality of a proposed withdrawal must be carefully considered. For example, in Mississippi, the statute authorizing the issuance of surface water withdrawal permits explicitly states: “No use of water shall be authorized that will impair the effect of stream standards set under the pollution control laws of this state based upon a minimum stream flow.” An appropriate case in point arose in early 2014, when a permit was sought to withdraw significant volumes of water for row crop irrigation purposes from a major stream in the Mississippi Delta. A citizens group opposed the permit proposal, contending that further withdrawals from that particular stream should not be allowed until a biological sustainability study was performed and then used as the ultimate determinant in considering applications for additional withdrawals. The citizens group and the applicant for the permit struck a compromise, but the fundamental questions about the impacts of such withdrawals on water quality remain.
Given the extended droughts in certain regions of the United States in recent years, the ever tightening laws and regulations governing both water quantity and water quality, and the reality of growing demands for water seemingly everywhere, “water wars” (both intrastate and interstate) will likely erupt more frequently as time goes by. And, in those States that have little or no statutes, regulations, and administrative procedures to work with, the fundamental questions for individuals and organizations (public and private) who want to oppose proposed water withdrawals, regardless of the intended beneficial use, will be what forum to use and what principles of law to assert. One thing is certain – seasoned water lawyers will likely see more business coming their way.
Posted on October 22, 2014
Yes, and here’s why: Joseph Sax’s writings remain as fresh today as when they were published. This blog — in noting his death earlier this year — described Sax’s revival of the public trust doctrine, for which he is justly famous. But some of Sax’s other studies stay relevant, and not only to the generation of environmental lawyers he taught at the University of Michigan Law School and at the University of California Berkeley School of Law.
Sax’s career focused not on the intricacies of pollution control statutes, but on the broader issues of allocation and management of scarce resources. The idea that public trust resources ought not to be diverted from public use, discussed in this blog, is the beginning. Citing Sax, the California Supreme Court in the Mono Lake decision injected public trust concepts into California prior appropriation doctrine. As noted recently in this blog, California water allocation law continues to slouch toward the present. These issues show why Sax enjoyed teaching water law.
Sax delighted in challenging conventional views. In an early article, he exploded the myth, exemplified by supporters’ confidence in the National Environmental Policy Act, of “the redemptive quality of procedural reform.” In 2002, he spoke at the University of Michigan about the Great Lakes. The assembled faithful expected him to reinforce their view that not one drop of water should leave the Great Lakes basin. Instead, to their dismay, he demonstrated why water allocation decisions should be based on an evaluation of alternatives, even if that meant water withdrawals from the Great Lakes. Some of the water allocation issues among riparian states that he explores in that speech were recently heard by the Supreme Court in Kansas v. Nebraska, concerning interpretation of an interstate water allocation formula, and will be considered in Mississippi v. Tennessee, which concerns pumping underground water across state borders.
One of the foundations of environmental law is the takings clause. Sax’s 1964 article, Takings and the Police Power, often cited by the Supreme Court, deserves re-reading for its lucid and compact analysis. Following the Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council decision, Sax imaginatively proposed an economy of nature underlying the market economy while criticizing the majority opinion in Lucas for being the outlier in takings law that we now know it to be. But Sax sympathized with the unfairness of takings law on property owners. Recently he noted that the Supreme Court has exhausted its efforts to develop a coherent takings theory. But, he said, that fact brings no solace to a late-in-the-game developer who, denied permits by a municipality that gave away the entire increment of infrastructure amenities to earlier-in-time developers, unfairly receives no compensation.
Management of public lands is a large part of environmental law. As we learned at the 2014 annual meeting, this College is embarking on a new initiative for East Africa community land use and natural resources rights. The underpinnings for such policies are found in Sax’s 1980 book Mountains Without Handrails, which proves the preservationist’s view of national park management. But management of private land adjacent to parks is equally important, as Sax explored in Helpless Giants: The National Parks and Regulation of Private Land. Sax was inspired to write this article when, after hard hiking through rhododendron “hells” in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park rising to the Appalachian Trail, he was surprised to see a luxury hotel — located on private land adjacent to the park — thrusting up beyond a forested ridge of the park.
Sax’s foray into the community values inhering in public and private art collections, Playing Darts with a Rembrandt, is echoed in the recent debate over whether the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts should be sold to pay the city’s creditors. Although disclaiming an exact fit with the public trust doctrine, the Michigan Attorney General opined that the DIA held the art as a charitable trust for the public.
Sax received many awards and much praise. His extensive scholarship was reviewed by his peers in a 1998 Ecology Law Quarterly symposium introduced by ACOEL Fellow Richard Lazarus. He received the Asahi Blue Planet Prize in part for drafting the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, the citizen-suit statute discussed here. If these recognitions do not convince you, reading Sax in the original should persuade you of the continuing relevance of his scholarship.
Posted on October 8, 2014
On September 16, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a trio of bills to establish a statewide regulatory scheme for use of groundwater: Assembly Bill 1739 and Senate Bills 1168 and 1319. California had previously been the only Western state to leave “reasonable” use of groundwater to the tender mercies of individual pumpers until such time as the aquifer is adjudicated, a process that takes decades to complete.
California historically had asserted regulatory authority only over surface streams and defined underground channels. But the most prevalent, and unregulated use, was of percolating groundwater. Overlying landowners were deemed to have “correlative” rights to the use of groundwater under their lands; that is, rights proportionate to the amount of owned land.
This laissez faire approach has led to widespread overdrafting of groundwater resources, subsidence, and ruined groundwater quality. Further, as stream flows decline—whether because of drought or climate change—more users turn to groundwater pumping, lowering the water table and driving up the cost of energy to lift the water.
All the other Western states exerted authority over groundwater in the previous century. For example, Oregon’s groundwater appropriation law was enacted in 1955. California finally joined the 20th Century with enactment of these bills as a response to unprecedented drought conditions and the fear that climate change will make matters worse.
In a nod to intense water politics, the bills take a local planning and management approach. Other states direct their water agencies to establish basin plans to manage their groundwater resources. In that sense, California has shown leadership in adopting a more decentralized approach to a water-scarce 21st Century. Under the new legislation, local entities are to develop management plans for their groundwater basin for state review. The state would intervene only if it deems the management plans inadequate or not enforced. This local approach has not prevented certain water users from denouncing the bills as a state power grab.
My first job as a lawyer was as staff counsel to the California State Water Resources Control Board. In response to what was then the worst drought on record, Jerry Brown, in his first iteration as Governor, convened a blue ribbon commission to review California water rights law. The group was staffed by U. C. Davis law professor Hap Dunning and a team of young water lawyers, including myself. We reviewed every aspect of California water law in a series of white papers, and made several sweeping and not so sweeping recommendations for reform.
None of the recommendations passed out of legislative committees. I suspect the current legislation would not have passed either but for the historic and severe drought conditions now facing the state. California will need to do whatever it can to stretch its limited and declining water resources to support its powerful agricultural economy and growing cities. Let’s hope that the new groundwater legislation will be a solution for this century.
Posted on June 17, 2014
The ownership of riverbeds can be an important question when development of minerals (coal, oil and gas, etc.) includes lands on which there are non-tidal surface streams. Under what is called the “equal footing doctrine”, each State owns the beds of all streams that were “navigable in fact” at the time that particular State entered the Union, or streams that were “tidal”, or subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Thus, claims of ownership of riverbeds of non-tidal streams depend upon the condition of the stream at the time of statehood, and upon the type of boats that were commonly used for commerce at that time. This becomes more of a historical research project than a legal analysis.
For example, in one recent case, involving Montana’s ownership claims to some streambeds, Justice Kennedy relied on the notes and letters of William Clark and Meriwether Lewis (of the famed Lewis and Clark Expedition) in ruling on the ownership claims. Montana, which was attempting to collect some $40 million in rent from the operator of hydroelectric dams, lost because Lewis’ and Clark’s notes showed there were five waterfalls, including one of over 80 feet, which required them to traverse overland via portage before finally putting their boats back in the water. Because of the need for portage around the waterfalls, the stream segments in question were not “navigable in fact”.
If you are involved in any matter involving the title to riverbeds, because of the equal footing doctrine, you need to be equally adept at historical, as well as legal, research.
Posted on April 11, 2014
A year ago, this blog contribution described the latest battle in a nearly 40-year old water war in Oregon’s Klamath Basin. Now, there is a tenuous peace agreement in place – but it may be short-lived. With substantial leadership from Senator Ron Wyden and Governor John Kitzhaber, a “Proposed Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement” was negotiated among the Klamath Tribes, State of Oregon, and a large group of independent farmers and ranchers who hold water rights to surface waters in the Klamath Basin, above Upper Klamath Lake. The underlying war has to do with who gets how much water in an on-going “general stream adjudication” of water diversions that began in the late 1800s to early 1900s, along with quantification of federally reserved water rights.
In March, 2013, the Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) issued its “Findings of Fact and Final Order of Determination” (“FFOD”), which approved the federally reserved claims of the Klamath Tribes for substantial instream flows in the Klamath River and tributaries above Upper Klamath Lake, and for specified lake levels. The Tribal water rights were granted a priority date of “time immemorial.” When the FFOD took effect last year, the Tribes were legally entitled to make a “call” for water – requiring the OWRD to take immediate action to curtail water use by junior appropriators until the Tribes’ instream flow allocations were satisfied. As a result, thousands of acres of irrigated farm and pasture lands were dry.
The impact of the call was economically, socially and politically devastating, leading Senator Wyden and Governor Kitzhaber to convene a fast-moving settlement process that began late last fall and resulted in conceptual agreement before the end of 2013. Further work in early 2014 resulted in a comprehensive agreement for the Upper Basin -- but the deal is fragile. Implementation of key settlement terms depends on securing substantial federal funding and state agency support, with no guarantees of either.
The settlement includes two key components: a Water Use Plan and a Riparian Program. Under the Water Use Plan, irrigators will voluntarily retire or reduce historic diversions by up to 30,000 acre-feet. Under the Riparian Program, landowners will commit to voluntary habitat restoration actions. The two components are to be implemented over a five year period, subject to the availability of federal funding. An additional $40 million of federal funding is to be provided for Tribal economic development.
This settlement agreement complements another agreement, reached several years ago, among the Tribes, state and federal agencies, and lower basin irrigators who receive water from Upper Klamath Lake under contracts with the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. That agreement also requires substantial federal funding that has not yet been committed, due at least in part to political pressures stemming from the fact that it addressed only half of the basin – leaving upper basin irrigators to bear the brunt of a Tribal call. With the upper basin interests now addressed through this second settlement agreement, the basin is now fully covered with strategies to help recover instream flows to meet Tribal water needs while maintaining a sustainable level of economic use for farmers and ranchers.
Optimists are hopeful the region will now be able to move forward with a united front to seek needed support from Congress. Pessimists say the deal will crumble beneath the political weight and budget pressures of Washington DC. One thing is for sure – the Klamath Basin water wars will not be ended soon. Stay tuned for next year’s update.
Posted on February 7, 2014
The Western states face two reciprocating and overarching problems in water resources policy. First, water is an increasingly scarce resource facing sharply competitive needs. Climate change is projected to put even more strain on water supplies. Second, most streams listed as water-quality impaired in the West are designated as such for issues related to the biological integrity of the waterway. The combination of aggressive human use of waters, manipulation of stream channels, and failure to control agricultural runoff has resulted in widespread degradation of aquatic habitat.
The primary impediment to addressing these related issues arises from dated legal constructs designed to achieve different objectives in eras with markedly different economies. In other words, trying to apply these constructs to today’s problems is like attempting to fit square pegs into round holes.
The doctrine of prior appropriation governs water rights everywhere in the West. It was developed in the 19th century to promote mining and agriculture—both water intensive enterprises—in arid climates. The doctrine provides that the first to physically take control of the water and put it to beneficial use has priority over later comers. Thus, the oldest water rights with the highest priorities are mostly agricultural, and many streams have become over-appropriated during the past century. So where does a growing community go for new water supplies? And what about maintaining sufficient high-quality flows instream for healthy fisheries?
The problem is made more acute by the formidable costs and regulatory uncertainty of developing major water storage projects. Many cities seek to acquire or share in old agricultural water rights through direct payments to water right holders or they finance irrigation system improvements for more efficient use of water. Such water marketing approaches free up water for municipal use, while reducing pressure to remove still more water from oversubscribed streams. But if a legislature could have anticipated then what we know now, might it a century ago have considered systems that allocate water based more on maximum public value and efficient use, rather than simply priority in time?
The Clean Water Act was enacted over 40 years ago to address toxic discharges of industrial and sewage wastewater to rivers and lakes. Dramatic events like the spontaneous ignition of the Cuyahoga River drove public demand for government intervention, leading to the new law. The Act has done a remarkable job of cleaning up end-of-pipe discharges (point sources), but has largely failed at controlling more diffuse sources of pollution (nonpoint sources) from stream channelization, devegetation of riparian habitat and agricultural runoff. Thus, many streams today are impaired by turbidity, nutrient loading, and higher temperatures.
Since the Act does not provide enforcement tools for nonpoint sources, regulatory agencies use the authority available to them to ratchet up controls on point sources. One solution to this problem is water-quality trading, in which a point source permittee can take watershed-restorative action upstream to correct a nonpoint pollution problem in order to meet escalating permit requirements. This approach can yield better ecological outcomes at lower cost. But if Congress were drafting the Clean Water Act today, any rational approach would address the problem of diffuse sources of pollution.
It seems unrealistic to expect substantive changes to either the law of prior appropriation or the Clean Water Act any time soon. Aside from the politics, changes to prior appropriation raise significant constitutional questions to the extent property rights are affected. In the meantime, we’ll have to continue looking for creative workarounds. This circumstance makes interesting work for lawyers, but is hardly the optimal approach to effective water resource use and protection.
Posted on July 9, 2013
These are sad times in Oregon’s Klamath Basin. The state is making national headlines again over water wars pitting farmers and ranchers irrigating lands above Upper Klamath Lake against the Klamath Indian Tribes.
The Klamath area first made front page national news in 2001, when farmers and ranchers protested the removal of water from irrigation in order to protect threatened sucker fish under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). This time, the headlines stem from an unprecedented “call” for water to serve a time immemorial water right granted to the Klamath Tribes. Under principles of the prior appropriation doctrine in place in Oregon and most western states, seniority matters, and time immemorial is the ultimate priority date.
The current problem was a long time in the making. After more than 38 years of administrative proceedings, the Klamath Basin General Stream Adjudication finally reached a critical legal juncture in March, 2013 that allowed historic water use claims to be enforced for the first time. At that time, the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) issued its long-awaited “Findings of Fact and Final Order of Determination” (FFOD) summarizing the state’s proposed disposition of more than 730 claims.
The FFOD included the state’s quantification of treaty-based reserved water rights for the Klamath Tribes to support fishing and gathering activities in Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries. Although the instream flow and lake level amounts claimed by the Tribes and approved by OWRD are still subject to further judicial review, the state is obligated to respond to the Tribes’ call unless and until a court stays the action.
As a result of the call, OWRD has already begun the process of shutting off water diversions for all other upper basin water right holders to the extent needed to fully satisfy the Tribes’ approved claims. This means a loss of water for thousands of acres of irrigated farmland and other junior uses including domestic water for homes, stock water, and even the lodge at Crater Lake National Park. The regulation system is based strictly on priority dates; however, OWRD has taken emergency action to allow continued water deliveries for human consumption and stock water.
At this point, a coalition of upper basin water users has petitioned for a judicial stay of the FFOD’s enforcement. A hearing was held on July 3, and a decision is expected soon. If the stay is not approved, the upper basin lands will remain dry and the economic losses will be substantial. With nearly 40 years to prepare, it is sad that the affected interests were not able to reach some level of negotiated agreement before the battle lines were drawn. Although both Tribal and non-Tribal water users have expressed interest in a negotiated solution, there is no settlement process currently underway, and the war rages on.
Posted on June 18, 2013
In a unanimous decision issued June 13, the Supreme Court put an end to a parched Texas municipal utility’s bid to secure an Oklahoma water right. In Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann, the Court rejected every argument Tarrant advanced to access Red River basin water on the Oklahoma side.
The fabled college football rivalry between the Texas Longhorns and Oklahoma Sooners is not the only long simmering regional contest. Dividing the waters of the Red River between Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana has been a source of tension through much of the twentieth century, until the states entered into a Compact in 1978, approved by Congress in 1980. The Compact took 20 years to negotiate.
At issue is a provision under the Compact that guarantees a minimum flow from a certain reach of the river to Louisiana, which lacks adequate storage facilities. The provision gives each state an equal share in the water from that reach. Tarrant, which serves the fast-growing Fort Worth area, had hoped to access water in an Oklahoma tributary before the water reached the Red River, as the river’s water quality is not suitable for domestic use when it enters Texas.
Failing in its attempt to purchase water from Oklahoma, Tarrant Regional Water District filed a water right application with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board. Knowing that Oklahoma law prohibits out of state use of water rights, Tarrant simultaneously filed an action in U. S. District Court. The district argued that the Compact preempts state water law, but the Court found nothing in the Compact to compromise the sovereign right of states to manage their waters. Absent an express provision in the Compact that allows signatories to access water across state lines, the states are free to regulate their waters as they see fit.
The states of Oregon and Washington entered into a compact in 1915, ratified by Congress in 1918, to regulate commercial fishing rights. In light of the Tarrant decision, would expansion of the compact to deal with other regional water issues make sense? For example, Washington and Idaho allow diversions of Lower Columbia River water for agriculture, whereas Oregon has not, citing fishery concerns. While the effect of the Federal Columbia River Power System on salmon has been hotly contested, and regional solutions attempted, perhaps a coordinated approach among the Northwest states with regard to Lower Columbia water use could bring about equities and protect fish. The Tarrant decision can be read to provide assurance that state prerogatives and rights are preserved even under a compact, unless the states decide it is in their mutual best interest to provide otherwise.
Posted on May 13, 2013
On February 11, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied a Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by the Village of Logan, seeking to compel the Bureau of Reclamation (“BOR”) to perform an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) for the Ute Lake Diversion Project in eastern New Mexico. The BOR issued an environmental assessment (“EA”), which analyzed the impacts from the diversion project based on the withdrawal of only 16,450 acre-feet per year (“af/yr”), despite the fact that the intake structure capacity is 24,000 af/yr. The BOR contended that the intake structure did not have sufficient pumping capacity and other infrastructure to achieve 24,000 af/yr.
At the preliminary injunction hearing, Logan presented evidence that the Interstate Stream Commission of New Mexico (“ISC”), as the putative owner of the water rights within Ute Lake, had contracted to sell 24,000 af/yr and that the engineering analysis demonstrated sufficient existing capacity within the intake structure to accommodate withdrawals of 24,000 af/yr. Consequently, similar to analyses required under other environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, Logan argued that the impacts from the proposed project must be analyzed based on the maximum achievable withdrawal capacity of the intake structure.
The difference in the severity of impacts, based on 24,000 acre-feet withdrawals and 16,450 acre-feet withdrawals, was significant. The EA conceded that, at 24,000 acre-feet per year, the minimum fisheries pool in Ute Lake – established to provide a minimum necessary habitat for recreational fishing – would be breached at least 20% of the time over a 30-year period. Allowing the fisheries pool to be breached for at least 6 years over the life of the project created inter-related economic impacts, including significantly decreased property values on the shoreline, decreased tax receipts for the community, lost jobs, and significantly declining revenue for the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.
The district court ruled that the EA, together with its finding of no significant impact (“FONSI”), was not arbitrary and capricious based on the assumption that the withdrawals would only reach 16,450 af/yr. The Court stated that, “If in the future, more infrastructure is added to facilitate further withdrawals, primary analysis of the environmental impact may be undertaken then.” The Court did not state whether such a “primary analysis” would occur within or outside of NEPA, and who would be responsible for initiating such an analysis. Moreover, assuming that the Court meant an analysis of “direct impacts” by the phrase “primary analysis,” it is unclear how such an analysis would not suffer from predetermination under NEPA. After all, the intake structure would already be built and there could not be any serious consideration of viable alternatives to the project.
The central issue on appeal is whether a federal agency may postpone part of its NEPA analysis to some unspecified time in the future, despite the fact that the capacity of the project, and the ability to withdraw 24,000 af/yr, is likely a “foreseeable” impact as defined in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations.
Posted on December 11, 2012
The song “Cool Water” was written and recorded in 1936 by Bob Nolan, an original member of the Sons of the Pioneers along with Len Slye, better known by his film name, Roy Rogers. “Cool Water” could be the theme song for Texas and other water-short western states. The Texas Water Development Board recently compiled “Water for Texas 2012 State Water Plan”. Quite simply, Texas does not have enough water to meet its current needs, much less its future needs, during periods of serious drought conditions. Texas is searching for cool, clear water.
Texas continues to grow. According to the Plan, the population of Texas is expected to increase 82 percent between 2010 and 2060, from 25.4 million to 46.3 million. Water needs are projected to increase by 22 percent, from 18 million acre-feet per year to 22 million acre feet per year in 2060. At the same time as water demand is rising, existing water supplies are diminishing by almost 2 million acre feet per year. Where will the additional water supplies be found to meet the identified needs?
The State Water Plan includes recommended water management strategies developed by regional planning groups, which include: conservation, drought management, conjunctive use of surface and groundwater, surface water reservoirs, aquifer storage, groundwater development, water reuse, desalination plants. In addition to addressing surface and groundwater water rights, water planners and users will need to confront the environmental implications of these strategies. What are the environmental regulatory constraints and impediments?
The implications and potential conflicts are far-reaching. We can all anticipate the obvious regulatory hurdles, contested procedures and property rights obstacles that projects to develop new surface reservoirs will confront. But what of other strategies like water conservation and reuse? Proposing water conservation (e.g. increased cooling water cycles) and reuse (e.g. use of treated municipal wastewater effluent) at a natural-gas fired power plant may threaten surface water quality as the total dissolved solids to be discharged are concentrated through these strategies. Also, what kinds of measures and alternatives under other environmental regulatory programs (e.g. Endangered Species Act) will need to be considered as these strategies are proposed?
The history of Texas is growth. To do nothing to meet its increasing water needs would result in staggering economic losses. Texas met the challenge after the drought of record in the 1950s. Texas will do it again! The question is: “how happy will the trails be?”
Posted on December 5, 2012
How far can affected stakeholders go in fashioning local, “place-based” solutions to water management problems? In other words, is it OK to throw western water law out on its ear – a little bit -- if no one complains?
The policy question arises in Oregon in connection with recent efforts to balance the need for increased water supply to support the potential for substantial agricultural-based economic growth in the Umatilla Basin – a major Oregon tributary to the Columbia River system – with competing water demands to comply with the Endangered Species Act by restoring and protecting instream flow for listed salmon. The balancing act also seeks to support treaty-based instream water rights for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation (CTUIR) and restore severely depleted ground water supplies (See CRUSTaskforce). The desire of stakeholders to explore new ideas that go beyond the boundaries established by existing water law is a foreseeable consequence of Oregon’s long-standing commitment to locally-based collaborative efforts to resolve complex natural resource issues (See Oregon Solutions and http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/LAW/docs/i_Chapter_4_Final.pdf). Just how far should state bureaucrats be willing to go in bending or changing traditional programs and policies to make way for customized, place-based solutions?
The specific example in the Umatilla Basin relates to proposals for establishing a water bank and brokerage system. (See http://orsolutions.org/beta/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Oregon-Solutions-Presenation-6_18_2012-CRUST.pdf). A broad-based coalition of local interests including individual farmers, irrigation districts, the CTUIR, conservation interests, local governments and agri-businesses have jointly proposed an option for collaborative water management. Under their concept, each year a water management plan would be filed with the state to describe how water would be used, and possibly redistributed under existing water rights. The concept includes a bottom line requirement that the water management changes not result in injury to any water user not participating in the plan, and not diminish instream flows. No harm, no foul. However, in preliminary discussions, the Oregon Water Resources Department – the state agency in charge of allocating and administering water rights -- has balked at the plan because it could allow water users to ignore priority dates and “spread” water – concepts traditionally abhorred in Western water law.
So, the question is: Should government get out of the way to let water users figure out their own strategies for managing water – even if it would throw certain principles of Western water law out on its ear? Why not, if it reflects a local consensus and no one complains?
Posted on May 2, 2012
The fish versus faucet debate that has been percolating in Connecticut for the past decade has produced a comprehensive stream flow regulation with release rules applicable to all dam owners. The new regulations will bring each segment of every river and stream in the state under the regulatory umbrella when fully implemented.
Previous regulations adopted in 1979 applied only to streams stocked with fish by the State and imposed a flat minimum release requirement on owners of dams on those streams.
The new regulations require the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to first assign each stream segment one of four classifications. Once the classifications are adopted, the regulations will require owners of dams to release water to maintain flows downstream of the dam according to the classification of the segment.
Class 1 will apply to segments which are free flowing and will require that any dam owner on these segments not manipulate storage or withdraw water from the impoundment. Class 2 will apply to segments with minimally altered flow and will require dam owners to provide for a continuous release of 75% of the natural inflow to the impoundment.
Class 3 will apply to segments with moderately altered flow and will require dam owners to comply with a variable minimum release regime calculated for the segment based upon one of six bioperiods. Class 4 applies to segments with substantially altered flows due to human needs for water supply, flood control, industry, agriculture and other lawful uses.
Connecticut’s five major river basins will be classified one basin at a time. The Department estimates that classification of all five basins will take five years. The regulations require that the release requirements applicable to regulated dam owners become effective not later than 10 years after a segment is classified. The lead time was deemed necessary to enable dam owners to make modifications to their structures to be able to comply with the release requirements.
The new regulations represent a compromise package between what the Department originally wanted and the regulated community would accept. Before the current package was approved, three previous proposed regulations had been rejected by the General Assembly’s Legislative Regulation Review Committee. To win legislative approval, the Department eliminated groundwater withdrawals from the scope of the regulations and provided exemptions for agricultural and golf course irrigators.
In addition, to provide certainty to water utilities, the regulations specify that segments downstream of a public water supply reservoir shall not be classified as Class 1 or Class 2. Finally, the regulations do not apply to government flood control dams or hydropower dams regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The regulations became effective on December 12, 2011.
Posted on April 9, 2012
The use of ecosystem services as a tool for compensatory mitigation is off to a slow start in Oregon. It remains to be seen whether state agencies will effectively embrace and implement this relatively new approach to setting priorities and standards for mitigation programs. A specific question from the standpoint of water use and development is whether a wide range of ecosystem services can be used as an alternative to “bucket-for-bucket” in-stream flow replacement as mitigation to offset new water development.
The concept of ecosystem services – defined as “the benefits human communities enjoy as a result of natural processes and biodiversity” – has been recognized in Oregon law since 2009. (ORS 468.581(3)). The law establishes a general policy to support the maintenance, enhancement and restoration of ecosystem services in Oregon (ORS 468.583). Agencies are “encouraged” to use ecosystem services markets as a means to meet mitigation needs for various programs, and are directed to consider mitigation strategies that recognize the need for biological connectivity and ecological restoration efforts at a landscape scale rather than exercise an “automatic preference for on-site, in-kind mitigation” in making mitigation decisions (ORS 468.587(2)). See “Adventures in Water Quality Mitigation” for additional background.
Despite this policy and directive, the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) has not yet taken any actions to modify its mitigation policies relating to issuance of new water right permits. Under long-standing procedures, OWRD requires mitigation for new uses that are determined to have the potential to interfere with in-stream flows needed for fish that are listed as sensitive, threatened or endangered under state or federal programs. (OAR Chapter 690, Division 33).
The need for mitigation arises most often in the context of reviewing applications for new ground water use. When the ground water source is determined to be in hydraulic connection to surface waters providing habitat for the listed fish species, mitigation may be required to offset the expected surface water depletion. Based on guidance from a biological opinion issued in a specific water right permit matter some years back, OWRD typically requires “bucket-for-bucket” mitigation in the form of in-stream flow restoration at or above the stream reach that will be affected by the ground water use.
Applicants generally obtain mitigation water by acquiring and cancelling other existing water rights for surface water use. In practice, the system results in a de facto cap and trade program, conditioning approval of new water rights on the cancellation of existing rights.
In a few regions of the state – most notably the Deschutes Basin in Central Oregon – the bucket-for-bucket replacement approach works because mitigation water is generally available through voluntary markets. This somewhat unique set of circumstances arises because of population growth and land use changes in an area of relatively marginal farming productivity. As farm lands are converted to housing and urban uses in and near the cities Bend, Redmond and Prineville, the existing water rights become available for mitigation purposes.
In other parts of the state – most notably the highly productive and water-efficient farming region in the mid-Columbia Basin – the fact situation is quite different. There is very little mitigation water available because existing water rights are needed to maintain existing agricultural production levels. The frustration for economic development interests is exacerbated by the enormous volume of flow in the Columbia River and huge reservoir pools created by the federal hydropower system, both of which are untouchable because of the regulatory limitations on new withdrawals.
The issue of ecosystem services as a potential alternative for mitigation took center stage briefly in the 2012 legislative session – but the discussion resulted in no action. HB 4126 would have spurred availability of ecosystem services markets by focusing on improved methodologies for quantifying and applying ecosystem services “credits.” Another bill that was hotly debated but eventually died in committee was focused directly on the Columbia Basin problems. HB 4101 would have required OWRD to “consider new mitigation options for new surface water diversions” in the Columbia River Basin. The mitigation wording was specifically intended to open the door for alternatives to the “bucket-for-bucket” approach. By putting the ecosystem services concept to work, mitigation alternatives could reasonably include investment in high value habitat restoration, including temperature reduction or other water quality improvements in priority tributaries to offset direct withdrawals from the Columbia River.
For many of us directly involved in the Columbia River debates in Oregon, this new approach could be a key to unlocking access to the river for new economic use. Without this policy change, Oregon water uses will continue to see little or no new irrigation development in the area because of the lack of traditional mitigation sources. The Governor and legislative leadership are already working on a revival of the HB 4101 discussion in 2013.
Posted on March 20, 2012
Chapter 4: High Stakes Litigation
My fall 2011 blog discussed Chickasaw Nation and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma v. Mary Fallin, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Oklahoma, et al., Case No. CIV-11-927-C, filed in Federal Court in Oklahoma City (“Federal Court case”) on August 18, 2011. In the Federal Court case, the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations seek declaratory and injunctive relief to protect their federal rights, their present and future water rights, regulatory authority over water resources and immunity from state law and jurisdiction over certain waters located in Southeastern Oklahoma. Certain aspects of this suit were also covered in Mark Walker’s December 2011 blog on the 1830 Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. As a result of recent developments, claims in the Federal Court case and outside that litigation have evolved and escalated, and the stakes are now much higher.
In June, 2010, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (“OWRB”) entered into an agreement with the Oklahoma City Water Utility Trust (“Trust”) to sell to the Trust certain of the OWRB’s rights to store waters of the Kiamichi Basin in the Sardis Reservoir and to control withdrawals of water from the reservoir. The tribes claim that a fundamental element of that agreement is the OWRB’s issuance of a water use permit granting the Trust annual water withdrawal rights from the Sardis Reservoir and/or the Kiamichi Basin in an amount roughly equal to ninety percent (90%) of Sardis’ estimated sustainable yield. The tribes take issue with the sale, transfer and appropriation of water which they assert was given to them under various treaties with the United States that granted them exclusive dominion and control over the water resources on their tribal lands in Oklahoma.
In a most important tactical move, the State of Oklahoma, through the OWRB, filed a Petition for a General Stream Adjudication in the Oklahoma Supreme Court on February 10, 2012, asking that court to assume original jurisdiction and determine the relative rights of all parties laying claim to waters which are the subject of the Federal Court case, pursuant to the federal McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666. Under the McCarran Amendment, such proceedings may be brought in either federal or state court, with the United States waiving its sovereign immunity if all interested parties are joined so that all rights can be determined in one proceeding. In a move surprising to many, the Oklahoma Supreme Court on February 23, 2012 unanimously agreed to accept original jurisdiction of the case and set a briefing schedule.
Not to be outdone, the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the Federal Court case on February 14, 2012, essentially asking the federal court to enjoin the Oklahoma Supreme Court from making a determination of the relative rights of the parties to the water. In this motion the tribes “clarified” that their case is not one that seeks adjudication of water rights, nor do they seek to determine the full extent of their regulatory authority over the water. The Nations contend that federal law does not allow the defendants to “drain the Treaty Territory waters in whatever quantity and for whatever purposes….without regard to the Nations’ rights…” Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Brief, p. 15. As a result of this filing, the Nations’ position is much less clear than before when they were seeking exclusive dominion and control over the same water.
The Defendants have filed motions to stay briefing on the Tribes’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Their arguments include assertions that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action; the case is barred because it violates the state’s Eleventh amendment immunity in the relief sought against the OWRB defendants; and there is a failure to join indispensable parties (the U.S. and the OWRB). Interestingly, the Defendants also ask the federal court to abstain from addressing the merits of the Federal Court case in deference to the General Stream Adjudication suit where the Oklahoma Supreme Court has assumed original jurisdiction pursuant to Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).
And it gets worse. On February 20, 2012 the Association for the Protection of Oklahoma Water (“APOW”) filed suit claiming irregularities in the OWRB’s authorization process for requesting a General Stream Adjudication. The suit alleges that the OWRB went into executive session to discuss the Federal Court case filed by the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations and came out of the meeting with a motion authorizing the stream adjudication, in violation of the Oklahoma Open Meeting and Open Records Acts. If the General Stream Adjudication request was filed as the result of improper authorization, presumably that proceeding could be dismissed. However, assuming the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with APOW’s contention, it might decide to stay the proceedings until the OWRB authorized another General Stream Adjudication request in accordance with state law. The original General Stream Adjudication case could then proceed or, if necessary, a new original action could be filed.
This is high stakes litigation between powerful sovereigns pitting the decision making role of the federal courts against that of a state supreme court. The jurisdictional dispute involving the state’s desire to avoid piecemeal litigation and seek a comprehensive determination of the rights of all parties in one action in state court as envisioned by the McCarran Amendment, versus the Nations’ interest in having their treaty rights determined in federal court, will be fascinating to watch. The substantive supremacy issues go to the heart of how dispute resolution occurs within a federal system, and the ultimate winner of this struggle will realize significant revenue for many years to come.
There is always the possibility that a negotiated settlement could let the courts off the hook. With the stakes being so high, both sides are already flinching, as evidenced by the lack of clarity in the filings made by both sides in the Federal Court case. However, sooner or later each party will have to tell the court exactly what it is asking the court to do, unless the parties settle. Those looking to see whether a settlement is possible may well be interested in the outcome of an upcoming hearing in the General Stream Adjudication case. According to an Oklahoma City newspaper, such a hearing is planned in April before a Supreme Court referee.
Again, the words “stay tuned” are particularly appropriate.
After this blog was written but before posting, the U.S. Justice Department on March 12, 2012 removed the General Stream Adjudication case from the Oklahoma Supreme Court to the US District Court in Oklahoma City, but it landed in a different federal court than the one where the Chickasaw case is pending. The Judge asked for briefs by March 27 on whether the cases should be consolidated, and the City of Oklahoma City filed a Motion to Remand the streamwide adjudication on March 19, 2012. Hold on, these cases are moving at the speed of light.
Posted on October 18, 2011
March and September 2009 blog entries discussed issues involving Native American water rights in the Illinois River and its watershed. The issues arose in connection with a federal district court case in Oklahoma involving poultry litter pollution. State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-329-GFK. In that case, the non-party Cherokee Nation signed an agreement with the State of Oklahoma wherein the State acknowledged that the Cherokees had “substantial” interests in the Illinois River and its watershed and wherein the Cherokees assigned to the State of Oklahoma any and all of their claims against the poultry defendants. The poultry defendants challenged the agreement, and for various reasons, the Court concluded that the agreement was not valid and did not grant standing to the State to assert the claims of the Cherokee Nation.
Other tribes did not fail to notice the purported agreement between Oklahoma and the Cherokee Nation, with the State acknowledging the “substantial” interest of the Cherokee Nation in the water resources of the State of Oklahoma, the Illinois River, and its watershed. Indeed, on August 18, 2011, the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations of Oklahoma filed a case involving Native American water rights in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Chickasaw Nation and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma v. Mary Fallin, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Oklahoma, et al., Case No. CIV-11-927-C. In this case, the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations of Oklahoma seek declaratory and injunctive relief to protect their federal rights, their present and future water rights, regulatory authority over water resources, and the right to be immune from state law and jurisdiction in and to certain waters located in the State of Oklahoma. The background facts are as follows:
In June, 2010, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (“OWRB”) entered into an agreement with the Oklahoma City Water Utility Trust (“Trust”), agreeing to sell to the Trust certain of the OWRB’s rights to store waters of the Kiamichi Basin in the Sardis Reservoir and to control withdrawals of the water from the reservoir. The tribes claim that a fundamental element of the agreement is that the OWRB will issue a water use permit that grants the Trust the right to annually withdraw water from the Sardis Reservoir and/or the Kiamichi Basin in an amount roughly equal to ninety percent (90%) of Sardis’ estimated sustainable yield. The tribes take issue with the sale, transfer and appropriation of water, which they assert was given to the tribes under various treaties with the United States granting them exclusive dominion and control over the water resources on their tribal lands in Oklahoma.
The suit alleges that Oklahoma officials earlier “acknowledged” tribal water rights in the waters in question, as evidenced by State officials seeking participation in a proposed interstate transaction involving the Kiamichi Basin waters. Paragraph 44. Similarly, the suit alleges that the State of Oklahoma “recognized [from the earlier poultry litigation] that ‘the Cherokee Nation has substantial interests’…” in the waters and natural resources in the Illinois River watershed. Paragraph 45. Thus, the earlier agreement with the Cherokee Nation (in which there was an acknowledgement of some level of sovereign rights of the Cherokee Nation in the Illinois River watershed), and the State’s participation in negotiations with the tribes over an interstate transaction related to the Kiamichi Basin waters, are apparently being invoked as indications of the State’s acquiescence in tribal rights in and to certain Oklahoma waters.
Some think that the State of Oklahoma has held its breath for years over the possibility that a court of competent jurisdiction will have the issue of tribal ownership of water squarely in front of it. Others think that the tribes don’t actually want to litigate the matter for fear of how it might turn out. Not so any more, as the Chickasaw and the Choctaw Nations place their ownership rights of water resources of the State of Oklahoma squarely in issue in this case, suing the Governor, the OWRB, the City of Oklahoma City and the Trust for the purported granting of rights to the Trust in the Sardis Reservoir and the Kiamichi River and its tributaries. A ruling in favor of the tribes establishing tribal sovereignty over water rights in certain Oklahoma water bodies and lakes and watersheds will stand Oklahoma on its ear, if it ever happens. Will the case be settled or go to trial? Do the tribes or the State really want to risk letting a court decide these questions? Stay tuned.
Posted on November 30, 2007
With some exceptions and common law developed standards, Arkansas has traditionally followed the reasonable use theory of the riparian doctrine. A riparian user must use water in a manner that is reasonable compared to others’ rights (including as to ground water).
As a mid-south state, Arkansas receives a moderate amount of rain per year (approximately 49.19 inches on average since 1895 compiled from the Arkansas Natural Resource Commission’s Arkansas Ground Water Protection and Management Report for 2006). Stress on the amount, use of and quality of its underground aquifers, primarily in east and southeast Arkansas, have resulted in increased scrutiny and planning for alternate water sources, including from conservation, recovery and surface water.
Arkansas has no current active system in operation for regulating water usage. The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, however, is directed to monitor our state’s water resources and can set minimum streamflows by rulemaking (but this step requires consultation with other state agencies). Water needs to be considered are domestic and municipal water supplies; agricultural and industrial; navigation; recreational; fish and wildlife and other ecological needs. The regulations and laws describe preferences and priorities, but are untested in practice.
Minimum streamflows are to be set on a case by case basis, defining such stream flows as the “quantity of water required to meet the largest of the following instream flow needs as determined on a case-by-case basis:” (1) interstate compacts, (2) navigation, (3) fish and wildlife, (4) water quality, and (5) aquifer recharge.
After minimum flows are established, non-riparian permits may be applied for from “excess surface water.” Excess surface water means twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of water available on an average annual basis from any watershed basin above that amount required to satisfy all of the following:
1. Existing riparian rights as of June 28, 1985
2. The water needs of federal water projects existing on June 28, 1985
3. The firm yield of all reservoirs in existence on June 28, 1985
4. Maintenance of instream flows for wish and wildlife, water quality, aquifer recharge requirements, and navigation
5. Future water needs of the basis of origin as projected in the State’s Water Plan
6. Additionally, in the White River Basin, permitted transfers may not exceed on a monthly basis an amount that is 50% of the monthly average.
Minimum streamflow is important because of its relevance to the Commission’s planning in the case of a possible shortage. Separate and apart from its use in this way, minimum streamflows are also used to determine when excess surface water is available for transfers to nonriparians.
These standards may be reviewed in the near future to begin establishing minimum streamflows and potentially, associated protected levels, which the Commission may attempt to implement by rule under shortage conditions. The White River is scheduled as the first river to be reviewed in conjunction with the Memphis District Corps of Engineers’ Grand Prairie Area Demonstration Project. While such irrigation projects were unusual in eastern states, another such project is on the horizon with the Corps’ November 2007 Record of Decision issued for the Bayou Meto Basin of Arkansas.
Thus, Arkansas’s riparian rights doctrines are yielding to state systems of oversight based on depleted aquifers and increased demands. For more information on Arkansas’s water resources and rules, click here.