Ridenbaugh Press/Water Rights

The Idaho Department of Water Resources has posted on its web site lengthy lists of “potentially unclaimed water rights by basin.”
The basins included in the list are 23, 24, 25, 43, 51, 55, 57, 61, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, and 86 – many of the basins for which objections all have been cleared.

Hundreds of water rights around the Snake River basin are listed.
The lists include the water right numbers, the basis (some decreed, licensed or by statutory claim), the water source and use and the owner or owners of record – specifically named in most cases, and including both public and private parties.

The page can be found at http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/WaterManagement/AdjudicationBureau/Reports_Presentations/Unclaimed.htm

The comment period for a new Flathead Indian Irrigation Project deal between local tribes and other water users will be extended to July 16 after an initial hearing generated both disagreements and the need for additional education about the terms of the agreement.

The basic draft involved an irrigation project set of terms involving the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and the Flathead Joint Board of Control. When the negotiation effort ended on May 31, one of the key elements was reported to be the amount of water available for non-tribal irrigators. That left to concern among irrigators about just how much money would be available.

One person at one of the public meeting said that “irrigators don’t want to be de-prioritized.”

The deal is available on line, but the terms may not be well understood.

The Center for Environmental Law & Policy encouraged people who live in the Columbia River Basin to learn more about the process underway to reexamine the Columbia River Treaty between the US and Canada.

The US and Canada signed the Treaty in 1964 to jointly manage the Columbia River. Under the Treaty, the US paid for 3 “treaty dams” in Canada and built the Libby Dam in Montana for two purposes: to control flooding in the US, and to significantly increase power generation at the 11 U.S. dams downstream. Under the current treaty, in 2024, the burden for downstream flood control shifts from Canada to the US.

The US and Canada are considering whether to terminate the Treaty, continue it with the automatic shift in the responsibility for flood control, or to renegotiate it. The earliest either country can terminate the Treaty is 2024, and only with at least 10 years notice to the other.

For 50 years the Treaty has governed management of the Columbia River for the two purposes of flood control and power generation. During the deliberations and ratification of the CRT, no consideration was given to impacts on fisheries, Tribes and First Nations, or cultural sites. “Times have changed,” said Suzanne Skinner, Director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, “ the US and Canada need to honor their obligations to the Tribes. Thanks to the Tribes, both the US and Canada now agree that restoring the ecological function of the Columbia has to be an equal concern with flood control and power generation. What we have to do now is to make our governments live up to this commitment to restore the waters and wildlife of the once-magnificent Columbia.”

Public meetings are underway. By September 2013, both US and Canada intend to complete recommendations for changing the Treaty that controls international management of the Columbia River.

“The Columbia River will not be managed in the future as it is now,” said John Osborn, Spokane physician and conservationist. “Changes in flood control outlined in the Treaty combined with climate change and a deteriorating river are drivers for change. Residents of the Columbia River Basin need to be informed and involved. Transparency is needed here.”

The US is holding four informational meetings in late June and July

The Bureau of Reclamation has released the draft environmental documents for approval of annual transfers of up to 20,500 acre-feet of Central Valley Project water from the Central California Irrigation District to the San Luis, Panoche, Del Puerto and Westlands Water Districts and up to 5,000 acre-feet of CVP water from the Firebaugh Canal Water District to the San Luis Water District or Westlands Water District.

Following potential execution of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and approval by the Contracting Officer, the proposed transfers would allow water districts and landowners flexibility to manage limited water supplies from July 2012 through December 2012 and April 2013 through December 2013.

The Draft Environmental Assessments and FONSI were prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and are available at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=10110. If you encounter problems accessing the documents online, please call 916-978-5100 (TTY 916-978-5608) or email mppublicaffairs@usbr.gov.

Written comments on the Draft EA/FONSI for the proposed actions must be received by close of business Thursday, July 5, 2012.

The Bureau of Reclamation has released the draft environmental documents for approval of a Warren Act contract and renewal of a right of way license to the San Luis Water District. Reclamation proposes to issue a five-year Warren Act contract to the San Luis Water District for conveyance of up to 1,500 acre-feet per year of groundwater in the San Luis Canal.

The term for pumping and conveyance would begin July 2012 and would conclude February 2017. To facilitate the pump-in, Reclamation proposes to issue a license to the San Luis Water District authority to use, operate and maintain the existing pipeline over Reclamation’s San Luis Canal right of way at Mile Post 79.67R for a period of 25 years.

The Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) were prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and are available at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=10090. If you encounter problems accessing the documents online, please call 916-978-5100 (TTY 916-978-5608) or email mppublicaffairs@usbr.gov.

Written comments on the Draft EA/FONSI for the proposed action must be received by close of business Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Attorney for the Black Canyon Irrigation District, the Pioneer Irrigation District and the Boise Project Board of Control on June 8 called for something uncommon and generally discouraged in recent years in the SRBA – designation of a new basin-wide issue.
If approved, it would be designated Basin Wide Issue 17.
SRBA Judge Eric Wildman on June 11 gave notice of a hearing on the issue on September 10 (at 1:30 p.m.) at the Twin Falls SRBA courthouse. Briefing by the initial parties and others will be allowed.

Basin-wide issues are legal questions of consequence to all or significant parts of the Snake River Basin, impacting water rights across a large region. More than a dozen were designated in the early years of the SRBA as a way of disposing of broad legal issues, but few have been approved more recently as judges have moved toward shutting down the case.

The attorneys in this case, however – Albert Barker, Scott Campbell, Charles McDevitt (a former Supreme Court justice) and Shelley Davis – are not newcomers to work in the adjudication.
And the matter at issue has considerable implications for water storage around the basin – and even, the proponents seem to suggest, beyond the SRBA and throughout the state of Idaho.

Their proposed issue: “Does Idaho law require a remark authorizing storage rights to ‘refill’ space vacated for flood control?”
The issue has become an abruptly heated one. Numerous motions on the subject of refills were filed, involving those districts and others, during the month of June.

The filers noted that “In certain on-going SRBA proceedings [they included a list in a separate exhibit] on Basin 01 storage water rights in American Falls and Palisades reservoirs, the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of Idaho have taken the position that a remark is ‘necessary’ on those storage rights for those reservoirs to administer water entering Reclamation reservoirs after water has been released from those reservoirs for flood control, or other operational mandates. While the parties disagree substantially on the form of remark, those parties nevertheless agree that some remark is required.

“Of concern to the Petitioners, the State of Idaho has argued broadly that 1) there can be no refill of any kind of storage rights unless there is a remark authorizing refill, and 2) that ‘Idaho law requires that storage ‘refill’ be subordinate to all existing and future water rights.’ The State’s argument is not limited to only the storage subcases at issue in that proceeding, but appears on its face to have broad applicability to all storage rights in all reservoirs in the state of Idaho.”

The issue has not touched on many subcase rights already issued by the SRBA Court, over a period of years.

The attorneys point out that “Most of the storage rights within within the jurisdiction of the SRBA have already been issued partial decrees without any remark concerning refill, much less the remark urged by the State in the Basin 01 proceedings. The Basin 63 Boise River storage rights, and the and the Basin 65 Payette River storage rights have no such remark and have historically refilled to protect the spaceholders in priority …”

They advised as to impact that “Early resolution of this issue through designation as a Basin Wide Issue will serve the purpose of judicial economy by ensuring an early and unified legal determination in the SRBA which can then be applied to individual storage water rights, even those which have already gone to partial decree. Without a Basin Wide Issue to resolve this matter prior to the SRBA’s entry of a Unified Partial Decree, then storage rights in other than American Falls and Palisades Reclamation facilities would be prejudiced.”

Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Michael L. Connor released the St. Mary River and Milk River Basins Study Summary Report outlining the findings of a two-year comprehensive study of the river basins. The report recommends using and enhancing the new river system model developed through this study to further analyze alternatives to address supply and demand issues in the basins, including Tribal and international issues.

The study, completed in partnership with Montana Department of Natural Resources, developed and tested a river systems model to serve as a planning tool, looked at historic and future water supplies and demands, and evaluated alternatives of how the St. Mary River and Milk River system might meet projected demands in the basin.

“Basin Studies bring water managers together to look at future supply needs and to create solutions to meet those needs,” said Commissioner Connor. “Even in good water years we have experienced water shortages in the Milk River Basin, so it is clear that our collaboration with the State of Montana on this study will provide new information and create a set of tools and alternatives that will be used to help meet the basin’s future water demands.”

Reclamation and DNRC developed and tested a “daily time step” river system model for stakeholders in the basins to use as a planning tool. The model was calibrated for historic water supply and demand conditions and then was run for five future climate scenarios to assess how the existing infrastructure would respond. The model provides decision-makers and stakeholders a tool to evaluate issues and potential solutions within the basin.

Mary Sexton, Montana DNRC Director, said, “Improved modeling will allow us to assess future water availability and demand in these basins, where water shortages are expected to increase.

“Our challenge going forward will be to improve our infrastructure and to manage water as efficiently as possible,” Sexton said. “The new river system model gives DNRC, the Bureau of Reclamation and water users a valuable tool for meeting that challenge.”

The St. Mary River and Milk River basins were selected as part of the WaterSMART Basin Study Program in 2009. Basin studies are comprehensive water studies that define options for meeting future water demands in river basins in the western United States where imbalances in water supply and demand exist or are projected to exist. Since its establishment, 17 basins have been selected to be evaluated. The Yakima River Basin in Washington, also selected in 2009, was completed earlier this year.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 25 said that it will not get involved in the long-running squabble between Georgia, Alabama and Florida over water flows originating from Georgia.

Where that leaves the long-running case, which has been considered and reversed through various courts, isn’t immediately clear. But on an immediate level, it refused to consider an appeal from Florida and Alabama on a circuit court decision that generally appeared to favor Georgia – and its use of the water.

That decision was followed on June 26 by a statement by the Army Corps of Engineers contending that has legal authority to allow a Georgia request dating from 2000 for water, amounting to 705 million gallons of water per day, sourced from Lake Lanier on the Chattahoochee River, by 2030.

The Corps did say it would have to conduct studies to make sure the water amounts are workable, and that George met its environnmental obligations.

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal on June 26 said he was pleased with the Army Corps statement, that “the state of Georgia agrees with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers legal opinion that the Corps has the ability to grant Georgia’s water supply request for Lake Lanier. Ultimately, deciding how much of Lake Lanier can be allocated for drinking water supply is the most important determination facing Georgia, the metro Atlanta region and our neighboring ACF basin states. That decision will help us not only plan for Georgia’s future growth, but it will also give us greater certainty regarding existing resources. This will help set the parameters for discussions regarding a resolution with our neighboring states.

“Today’s legal opinion and technical analysis by the Corps that it has the authority to grant Georgia’s previous water supply request is welcome news and an important step toward the Corps final reallocation decision.”

The other states did not offer an immediate response.

The Washington Department of Ecology has opened a public comment period and scheduled public hearings on a proposed water right examiners program.

A proposed statewide rule would create the program that would streamline service for water right permit holders by allowing them to use water right examiners certified by Ecology. The examiners, paid for by water right applicants, would verify that water use projects have been completed and that the projects qualify for final water right certificates.

“The opportunity to rely on certified water right examiners for final inspections of applicants’ place and purpose of water use will free up Ecology staff to focus more time and effort processing pending water right applications,” said Maia Bellon, manager of Ecology’s Water Resources Program. The program would be modeled after similar programs in Oregon and Idaho.

Professional engineers and land surveyors, registered hydrogeologists and water conservancy board members would be among those considered initially eligible to become certified water right examiners. Once the rule takes effect, an individual interested in becoming a certified examiner would need to apply and meet minimum qualifications, pay a $300 examination fee and upon passing the written examiner’s test pay a $200 certification fee. Ecology would then add the individual’s name and contact information to the list of certified water right examiners on Ecology’s website.

Four public hearings are scheduled in July on the proposed certified water right examiners program, all beginning at 6 p.m. on the scheduled day. Following are the dates for the hearings and the Ecology offices where they will be held:

Bellevue, WA, Monday, July 16, 2012 – Northwest Regional Office, 3190 16th Ave. S.E., Bellevue.
Lacey, WA, Tuesday, July 17, 2012 – Ecology headquarters, 300 Desmond Dr., Lacey.
Yakima, WA, Wednesday, July 18, 2012 – Central Regional Office, 15 W. Yakima Ave., Ste 200, Yakima.
Spokane, WA, Thursday, July 19, 2012 – Eastern Regional Office, N. 4601 Monroe St., Spokane.

The public comment period for the proposed certified water right examiner rule ends at 5 p.m. Friday July 27, 2012.

The Department of Water Resources is decreasing flows
to the Feather River through the City of Oroville.

From June 14 through June 22, flows to the river through Oroville were increased to attract spring-run Chinook salmon to the Feather River Fish Hatchery and to facilitate maintenance on Thermalito Afterbay river outlet gates. By June 29 the river through the city will be reduced to its normal flow of approximately 600 cubic feet per second.

The flow changes will not affect water deliveries, hydroelectric power generation or the total outflow of the Feather River downstream of Thermalito Afterbay.