Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Water and Cities Richard M. Glick Oregon City Attorneys Association May 3, 2013.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Water and Cities Richard M. Glick Oregon City Attorneys Association May 3, 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 Water and Cities Richard M. Glick Oregon City Attorneys Association May 3, 2013

2 Hot Issues  Municipal water rights extensions – Cottage Grove – Clackamas River water providers – Adair Village  New storm water cases – L.A. County Flood Control Dist. v. NRDC – Virginia DOT v. EPA  Water quality trading—NEA challenge

3 Water Rights Extensions  1987 DOJ opinion on extensions, rulemakings put hold on extension requests  Coos Bay – North Bend Water Board case  HB 3038 (2005) – Cities are different from other water users – New extensions up to 20 years + extensions – Earlier extensions grandfathered – Diligence/good cause clarified to include water planning, not actual construction

4 Water Rights Extensions  HB 3038 (cont.) – Water use beyond previous maximum upon approval of Water Management & Conservation Plan – Fish persistence condition—first extension only “undeveloped portion of the permit is conditioned” Based on “existing data and upon the advice” of ODFW – Codified as ORS

5 Cottage Grove Extension  WaterWatch v. WRD (Case No. A147071)  City completed undeveloped portion and certificate issued  Growing Communities Doctrine  WRD discretion to find “good cause”; need not cancel permit – Springfield delegated term – Cities continued development during hiatus

6 Cottage Grove Extension  Water used as of extension request key, not previous deadline to use water – Case will say what “undeveloped portion” means  Could fish persistence issue have been avoided? – City had biological opinion from National Marine Fisheries Service

7 Clackamas Extension

8  WaterWatch v. WRD (Case No. A148870)  WRD set minimum flow requirements with annual check-ins  Growing Communities Doctrine  WW argued HB 3038 set “do no harm” standard—individual fish v. community needs  WRD must rely on available data and ODFW  Adaptive management approach appropriate

9 Adair Village  Contested case pending, in mediation  Adair has outsized (85 cfs) water rights, undeveloped for 40 years  IGA with Hillsboro and Polk County  WaterWatch protest – Good cause/diligence lacking – Adair can’t use all and is “speculating” ORS (3) allows regional water solutions – Fish conditions not adequate

10 Storm Water  Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council (U. S. Supreme Court 1/8/13) – /10/supreme-court-decision-good-news-for-dam- owners/ – District collected storm flows in conduits that discharged to unimproved portion of same stream – Held, not a discharge of pollutants under Clean Water Act 402, no NPDES permit required

11 L.A. County Flood Control Dist. v. NRDC

12 Storm Water  L. A. County Flood Control District (cont.) – Reaffirms dams are not point sources – South Fla. Water Management Dist., v Miccosukee Tribe—pumping polluted water from one part of a water body to another part of the same water body is not a discharge of pollutants

13 Storm Water  Virginia DOT v. EPA ( U. S. Dist. Ct. 1/3/13) – sion.pdf – Held, EPA cannot set a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for storm water flows under the Clean Water Act, can only regulate pollutants – EPA attempted to use storm water flows as surrogate for sediment problem – No appeal, but rules being developed

14 Storm Water  Iowa League of Cities v. EPA, No (8th Cir. 2013)  %20opinion.pdf  EPA policies re “blending” and bacteria mixing zones vacated  EPA lacks authority to: – Dictate technology for meeting effluent limits – Modify effluent limits without rulemaking Policy “functionally similar” to a rule

15 Water Quality Trading  EPA and DEQ have policies favoring trading and ecomarket approaches to water quality regulatory problems— examples: – Downstream NPDES permittee contracts with upstream food processor to reduce nutrients entering the river, addresses dissolved oxygen – Municipal sewerage agency contracts with upstream farmers to plant riparian vegetation for shade, addresses temperature

16 Water Quality Trading  Clean Water Services pioneered massive tree planting program in Tualatin Basin – Satisfies temperature criteria in permit – Better ecological outcome at lower cost than mechanical chiller – Implementation takes longer, metrics difficult  City of Medford attempting same

17 Water Quality Trading  Northwest Environmental Advocates letter to EPA of 3/15/13 – DEQ implementation inconsistent with EPA regs – Objects to DEQ giving credit for riparian planting on assumption landowners have no obligation Nonpoint sources are given allocations under TMDL, which assumes compliance (even though no enforcement authority) – Implementation schedule too long

18 Water Quality Trading  Implications of NEA challenge – Confuses strict compliance with eco uplift – Assumes nonpoint sources can be enforced against, or just ratcheting up pressure on point sources – Implementation of TMDL allocations for nonpoint sources depends on funding from permittees – Implementation longer, but much better outcome – Follows NEA success taking down DEQ temperature standards, agencies nervous

19 Water Quality Trading  Fascinating blog post: – 3/04/19/can-we-please-talk-about-outcomes- for-a-change/

20 Rick Glick  (503) tel  Davis Wright Tremaine 1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 Portland, OR

Download ppt "Water and Cities Richard M. Glick Oregon City Attorneys Association May 3, 2013."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google