Ridenbaugh Press/Water Rights

The Texas Commission on Enviuronmental Quality on June 29 granted an approval for a petroleum coke power plant in Corpus Christi, operated by Las Brisas Energy Center LLC, an extension to correct defects in its original application for an operating permit. Eventual approval of the permit is expected.

The less obvious end result may be a much stronger draw on the Colorado River (the Texas stream) than at present, by the city of Corpus Christi.

The city already draws from the Colorado. Because of an agreement worked out more than a decade ago with an irrigation district in the basin, Corpus Christi has the right to use as much as 68 billion gallons. (Much of it comes from the Choke Canyon Reservoir, Lake Corpus Christi and Lake Texana.)

At present, it only actually uses about 42 billion, but planners have been looking at major expansions. If the coal plant starts operation, it may need five billion gallons, which it would get from Corpus Christi. which in turn it would get from the Colorado basin.

The water is transmitted more than 100 miles from the river basin the city to the south through a large pipeline.

Las Brisas also reportedly is considering developing three more power plants in Texas, at least one of which also might draw water from the Colorado.

In its spring water news publication, the California Water Board summarized water transfers around the state. It reported:

From December 2009 through May 2010, the State Water Board received eleven petitions for temporary change to authorize the temporary (one year or less) transfer of water, three of which have since been withdrawn. On May 5, the Division issued Order 2010­0017­DWR, approving a change in place of use to deliver 10,000 acre­ feet of State Water Project (SWP) water (originally intended for Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District and Empire West Side Irrigation District) to Westlands Water District. The remaining active petitions for temporary change are in the public notice phase. These notices are available for viewing online.

DWR has also petitioned for a long-­term transfer involving parties and terms similar to Order 2010­0017­-DWR, with a transfer period of 2011–2027. The Division expects to issue the public notice for the petition for long­-term transfer by the end of May. Last year’s consolidated place of use action for the Central Valley Project and SWP was approved by State Water Board Order 2009­-0033. No new transfers will be initiated pursuant to Order 2009­0033, and all but one have been completed. The one ongoing transfer, an exchange between Arvin­-Edison Water Storage District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, was started in October 2009 and should be completed by May 2010.

A California environmental group is warning that a proposed state water transfer from parts of the northern Sacramento River basin toward the south could serious damage parts of that basin and portions of the San Joaquin as well.

The Butte Environmental Council along with the the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), and the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) (the Coalition) filed a lawsuit on April 13 in protest of the action.

Their statement: Continue Reading »

For years, businessman T. Boone Pickens and the water company he owns, Mesa Water, have bought volumes of water rights in the Texas Panhandle. Now he is fielding inquiries from locals: Will you sell?

The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority is reportedly interested in buying out as much as 200,000 acre-feet from Pickens. That could nearly double the authority’s holdings.

No immediate word of whether Pickens is willing to sell. [ProNews7 Amarillo, April 8]

The Oglala Sioux Tribe along with the Bureau of Reclamation held a celebration on August 20 to celebrate the delivery of water to the community of Wanblee, S.D., from the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project.

The public is invited to attend the celebration that will be held at Crazy Horse School in Wanblee, S.D. The celebration will begin at 10 a.m. with Mr. Frank Means serving as Master of Ceremonies; Oglala Sioux Tribe President John Steele will provide opening remarks followed by keynote speaker, Bureau of Reclamation’s Commissioner Robert Johnson. In addition to numerous honorary speakers, guest speakers include South Dakota’s Congressional Delegation, Rosebud Sioux Tribe President Rodney Bordeaux, Lower-Brule Sioux Tribe President Mike Jandreau and former West River / Lyman-Jones manager Mr. Mike Kurle.

Prior to the construction of the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project most people in southwestern South Dakota had serious water quantity and water quality problems. Fortunately some people had the foresight of a regional rural water system to address those problems. Many more people worked together to get this Project authorized, to get it funded, to design and build it, and to maintain it.

The Bureau of Reclamation credits Tribal, state and local officials and agencies for having the vision to bring water to the Pine Ridge Reservation; that vision is now a reality. The Mni Wiconi project is a true testament that people can work together to develop a solution and overcome a common problem. The Mni Wiconi project would not have happened if it were not for the cooperative efforts of all of its sponsors. When completed, the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project will supply water to the Lower Brule, Pine Ridge, and Rosebud Reservations as well as the West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System. West River/Lyman-Jones serves the people located in nine counties outside of the reservations.

For more information regarding the celebration, contact Willard Clifford at 605-455-1367 or Paul Little at 605-455-2767.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region August 18; Contact: Willard Clifford (605) 455-1367 or Patience Hurley (701) 221-1204

The Environmental Protection Agency is announcing a rule to clarify that permits are not required for transfers of water from one body of water to another. Such transfers include routing water through tunnels, channels, or natural stream courses for public water supplies, irrigation, power generation, flood control, and environmental restoration.
“EPA’s Water Transfer Rule gives communities greater certainty and makes clear they have the flexibility to protect water quality and promote the public good without going through a new federal permitting process,” said Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin H. Grumbles. “Clean water permits should focus on water pollution, not water movement. EPA is committed to working with our state, tribal, and local partners to reduce environmental impacts associated with transfers and will continue to use all appropriate tools such as standards, best management practices, and watershed plans.”
Thousands of water transfers currently in place across the country are vital to the nation’s water supply and infrastructure systems. Whether a permit is needed under the Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System has been an issue in numerous court cases in recent years.
The final rule defines water transfers as an activity that conveys or connects waters of the United States without subjecting the transferred water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. Pollutants introduced by the water transfer activity itself to the water being transferred would still require an NPDES permit. Furthermore, this rule does not prevent states or tribes from using their own authorities to address water transfers, including the use of non-NPDES permits.
In 2004, the question of whether NPDES permits were necessary for water transfers went before the U.S. Supreme Court in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians. The court did not rule directly on the issue, which left unresolved the uncertainty many felt about the need for an NPDES permit. EPA issued an interpretive statement in 2005 explaining that Congress intended water resource-management agencies and other state authorities to oversee water transfers, not the NPDES permitting program. This rulemaking codifies that position.
Over the last several years, EPA has been advancing water quality improvements related to water transfers and other hydrologic modifications through watershed planning and management measures.
For example, last summer EPA issued the National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Hydromodification guidance that provides recommended best management practices for addressing the effects of changes in flow.
The recently released Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters can assist communities as they analyze water quality priorities in their watersheds and identify management measures to reduce causes of impairments.
More information on the rule:   Contact: Shakeba Carter-Jenkins (202) 564-4355 carter-jenkins.shakeba@epa.gov

The International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, has identified works it will be undertaking during the current year to maintain the Rio Grande flood control project and stabilize the international river boundary in the area of El Paso, Texas-Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua. The works are being carried out in conformance with Minute No. 313, Maintenance in the Rectified Channel of the Rio Grande, a Commission agreement concluded earlier this year. Minute No. 313 makes recommendations for works in critical locations where the Rio Grande channel has problems conveying normal and flood flows as a result of sediment, vegetation growth, and levees in poor condition.

“This agreement will enable the Commission to undertake critical work to remove sediment caused by the 2006 flood,” said U.S. Commissioner Carlos Marin.
Mexican Commissioner Arturo Herrera stated, “This Minute helps to address the problem by establishing a clear mechanism for distribution of maintenance works in the Rio Grande channel between both countries for this region.”

The agreement covers a 91-mile (146.5 km) reach of the river from El Paso, Texas-Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua downstream to Fort Quitman, TX. In accordance with the agreement, each country will be responsible for removing sediment from specific river reaches totaling 45.5 miles (73.23 km) each. The work will be carried out by personnel or contractors from the U.S. Section and the Mexican Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission. Each section will also be responsible for maintaining the floodway and levees in its own country.

Minute No. 313 identifies priority sites affected by flood flows during storms in August 2006. The priority works include sediment removal and levee repairs in both countries. Both Sections began work at priority sites in 2007. The U.S. Section has already restored the U.S. river levee from near Asarco to the Zaragoza International Bridge. The Mexican Section, using funds provided by the U.S. Section, removed sediment from a portion of the concrete-lined Chamizal Project channel through central El Paso-Ciudad Juarez. The Mexican Section, in cooperation with Mexico’s National Water Commission, also removed sediment from critical reaches of the river channel in the Juarez Valley and did vegetation removal and clearing along the Mexican levee in the same area.
In accordance with Minute No. 313, the U.S. Section Work Plan for 2008 includes stabilization of the river bank for 200 feet (60 m) downstream of International Dam, which has already been completed, silt removal and channel realignment between International Dam and the Chamizal Project, and environmental permitting to realign the river in future years at the Guayuco and Diablo Arroyos in Hudspeth County (the river alignment has changed due to the impact of the arroyos).

This year, Mexico will be removing sediment along the river channel between American Dam and International Dam, with work expected to be undertaken from June through October, and at three other segments totaling 11 miles (18.4 km) between the Zaragoza International Bridge and Ft. Hancock, TX- El Porvenir, Chih. The Mexican Section will also be doing work on its levees.

The Commissioners observed that prior to Minute No. 313, there was not a clear understanding of the responsibilities to be undertaken by each Section, making it difficult to schedule and arrange necessary maintenance work on an ongoing basis. Failure to remove silt and attend to other maintenance tasks presents a risk of municipal flooding and could result in a change in the river’s course, altering the international boundary. Minute No. 313 also allows each country to better plan and allocate funding.

Contact: Sally Spener 915-832-4175  sallyspener@ibw

The Environmental Protection Agency is announcing a rule to clarify that permits are not required for transfers of water from one body of water to another. Such transfers include routing water through tunnels, channels, or natural stream courses for public water supplies, irrigation, power generation, flood control, and environmental restoration.

“EPA’s Water Transfer Rule gives communities greater certainty and makes clear they have the flexibility to protect water quality and promote the public good without going through a new federal permitting process,” said Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin H. Grumbles. “Clean water permits should focus on water pollution, not water movement. EPA is committed to working with our state, tribal, and local partners to reduce environmental impacts associated with transfers and will continue to use all appropriate tools such as standards, best management practices, and watershed plans.”
Thousands of water transfers currently in place across the country are vital to the nation’s water supply and infrastructure systems. Whether a permit is needed under the Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System has been an issue in numerous court cases in recent years.

The final rule defines water transfers as an activity that conveys or connects waters of the United States without subjecting the transferred water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. Pollutants introduced by the water transfer activity itself to the water being transferred would still require an NPDES permit. Furthermore, this rule does not prevent states or tribes from using their own authorities to address water transfers, including the use of non-NPDES permits.

In 2004, the question of whether NPDES permits were necessary for water transfers went before the U.S. Supreme Court in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians. The court did not rule directly on the issue, which left unresolved the uncertainty many felt about the need for an NPDES permit. EPA issued an interpretive statement in 2005 explaining that Congress intended water resource-management agencies and other state authorities to oversee water transfers, not the NPDES permitting program. This rulemaking codifies that position.

Over the last several years, EPA has been advancing water quality improvements related to water transfers and other hydrologic modifications through watershed planning and management measures.

For example, last summer EPA issued the National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Hydromodification guidance that provides recommended best management practices for addressing the effects of changes in flow.

The recently released Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters can assist communities as they analyze water quality priorities in their watersheds and identify management measures to reduce causes of impairments.
More information on the rule: epa.gov/npdes/agriculture  Contact: Shakeba Carter-Jenkins (202) 564-4355 carter-jenkins.shakeba@epa.gov

Washington’s Puget Sound Energy reportedly is close to selling Lake Tapps in Pierce County south of Seattle. If it sells, it would mark success after three previous deals fell apart.
The buyer would be the Cascade Water Alliance, which includes the cities of Bellevue, Issaquah, Kirkland, Redmond and Tukwila and small water districts at Covington, Sammamish and Skyway.
Previously, three other cities, Auburn and the smaller Sumner and Bonney Lake, had made a bid for the lake.
Water rights are expected to be issued, one way or another, later this year by the state Department of Ecology.
Seattle (WA) Times, March 1

The board of directors of the San Diego County Water Authority today approved terms for an agreement with the Semitropic-Rosamond Water Bank Authority (SRWBA) to store between 60,000 and 100,000 acre-feet of water in the two separate groundwater aquifers that encompass the SRWBA. The water, once stored, may be called upon by the Water Authority to help meet water demands in San Diego County in times when imported water supplies are constrained by drought or other factors.
“This water banking arrangement will be a vital component of our water supply reliability strategy,” said Fern Steiner, chair of the Water Authority’s board of directors. “It will help protect our region’s $157 billion economy and the quality of life of 3 million residents from the effects of water supply shortages.
Representatives of the SRWBA called the agreement a major step forward in the expansion of its groundwater banking program.
“This action represents an important partnership with the San Diego County Water Authority and a significant expansion of our successful water storage and recovery program,” said Will Boschman, general manager of the SRWBA and general manager of the Semitropic Water Storage District in Wasco, Calif.
Under the approved terms, the Water Authority will purchase 20,000 water storage “units.” Each unit will allow the Water Authority to store between 3 and 5 acre-feet of water and recover up to 20,000 acre-feet of water in a single year. Funds provided by the Water Authority will be used by the SRWBA to construct facilities necessary to place water into the aquifers and to extract water when requested by the Water Authority. Those facilities are expected to be completed before the end of 2009.
The Water Authority’s Drought Management Plan identified the need for up to 30,000 acre-feet of short-term – or “spot” – water transfers in 2008, 2009 and 2010 to help meet water demands. A key feature of the agreement includes the Water Authority’s purchase of 10,000 acre-feet of water already in storage in Semitropic. That water will be available for withdrawal in 2008, if necessary, to meet water demands in the Water Authority’s service territory.
In a related board action Thursday, the Water Authority board approved expanding the Water Authority’s goal for the purchase of spot water transfers in 2008 from 30,000 acre-feet to 40,000 acre-feet, inclusive of the water purchased as part of the agreement with the SRWBA. The Water Authority is currently in negotiations with a number of water districts in Northern California on water transfer purchases. Supplies from theses transfers may be moved directly into San Diego County this year or stored in the Water Authority’s storage account with the SRWBA.
San Diego County Water AuthorityJanuary 24, John Liarakos; Office (858) 522-6703