The Hydrologic Cycle water. usgs

The Hydrologic Cycle http://nd. water. usgs

Water as Property Water is unique. Why?
It is “a moving and cyclical resource” Water is a common pool resource States generally claim ownership over water But, States have a trust responsibility to manage water resources to protect the public interest Water rights are usufructuary Private persons obtain the right to use water They don’t own it in the classic sense of property

Managing Water is Complicated
The amount of the resource is not fixed over time like other resources Unpredictable seasonal cycles and variations make the availability of water at any given time uncertain But, water is essential to society We have plenty of water, but… We don’t always have it where we need it Some of it is contaminated or unusable And our legal system does not always lead to the efficient and fair distribution of water The global water crisis is a management crisis

Water and Geography Plentiful water in the East made it possible to radically transform the Eastern United States “Reclaiming” the West has been much harder (and much more expensive) Despite hundreds of dams, some of an almost unthinkable scale, much of the West remains a vast undeveloped landscape

Variability of Rainfall
From rainforests to deserts Scarcity may occur even with abundant supplies if you cannot get water where it is needed Global rainfall globe/anomalies.html

Water and Pollution 1.1 billion people lack access to an improved water supply 2.4 billion lack access to improved sanitation In 2000, there were an estimated 2.2 million deaths due to water-borne diseases In the United States, we take clean water for granted But note that our water systems are susceptible to terrorist attacks

Cadillac Desert Water has made the development of the Western United States possible But, water is available where it is needed in the West only because of elaborate reclamation projects Projects capture spring snowmelt The scale of mountain runoff during the spring is hard for Easterners to imagine Consider the political importance of water projects Still, it is a myth that the West is running out of water In many states 95% or more of the water is going to irrigate low value crops

The 100th Meridian http://www. geography. about

Precipitation Map of the U.S. http://www.doi.gov/water2025/precip.html

Uses for Water Instream Out of Stream
Fish and wildlife; recreation; ecosystem services (like water purification); navigation; hydropower; dilution Out of Stream Irrigation; municipal water supply; industrial uses

The Colorado River Basin http://biology. usgs

What Can the Great Lakes Basin Learn from the West?
How is the Great Lakes Basin like the Colorado River? How is it different? Are the differences so great that the Colorado River system cannot offer relevant insights?

Water Institutions From whom do people get water?
Compare farmers with industrial users with small domestic users with city residents Note that quasi-governmental institutions play a significant role in many parts of the country From drainage districts to irrigation districts to water and power districts to sanitation districts Ball v. James holds that these districts are generally not subject to a one-person, one vote standard! Voting is often done by acreage.

The Nature of Water Supplies
People who use water either have their own water “right” or they may rely on someone else’s water right Water “rights” are sometimes an incident of property ownership, and are sometimes granted by government agency through a permit Generally, no one pays for water. Water is free. Our water bill pays for the infrastructure needed to clean the water and bring the water into our home. The same is essentially true for farmers

Water Institutions Where do people get there water?
Urban and suburban residential users typically get their water from government or quasi-governmental agencies Municipalities, water districts Rural users often have private wells Farmers usually get their water from various types of water districts, including conservancy and irrigation districts Industrial users sometimes tap into municipal with small domestic users with city residents or sometimes have their own water supplies

Water Institutions Joint ditches (informal; contractual)
Mutual ditch companies (typically non-profit corporations) Private companies (e.g., Ohio American) Special purpose districts (quasi-governmental) Irrigation districts and water conservancy districts (like snowflakes—no two alike)

Special Purpose Water Districts
Advantages—Preferred entities for federal contracts Powers of eminent domain General fee assessment powers (Tax power?) Sanctioned by court order Special purpose districts are typically approved by order of a local district court Those who prefer not to be included can object on grounds that they will not benefit (but it can be tough to opt out) Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley (Maria Bradley lost her land for refusal to pay assessment

Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 Salt River Project District
Officials elected by voters who receive one vote for each acre of land they own in the district District includes more than one half the population of Arizona Persons who own less than one acre do not receive a vote District subsidizes water works with electricity sales Is it a public utility? Can issue tax exempt bonds; Property is not taxed; Has eminent domain authority Is it subject to one person, one vote rule? Would it matter whether the district has ad valorem (property) taxing power. Why?

Irrigation Schematic http://www.doi.gov/water2025/irrigation.html

Center-Pivot Sprinkler Patterns http://www. ars. usda

Center-Pivot Sprinkler http://www. ers. usda

Furrow Irrigation http://www. ers. usda

Earthen Ditch http://www. co. union. oh

Parshall Flume http://wwwrcamnl. wr. usgs

Siphon Irrigation http://www. ers. usda

Gated Pipe http://www. ers. usda

Valuing Water Consider the value of water to community at Put-in-Bay
Toledo Blade August 25, 2004 Put-in-Bay's predicament AN OUTBREAK of gastrointestinal illness that seems to have South Bass Island and Put-in-Bay as a common link is in its second week without a definitive explanation or answer. Hopefully, the public can be reassured that an "A team" of investigators appears to be closing in. The number of people who say they became ill after visiting the popular resort island in Lake Erie off Port Clinton passed 750 on Monday, some of them from as far away as California, Florida, and Texas….

Externalities and the Cost of Water
Consider the vast costs that are imposed by externalities on our water supplies The bill for making our water clean enough to drink is in the trillions of dollars But the majority of these costs are imposed by humans. Society accepts pollution from a wide range of sources -- farms, factories, wetland removal, development – and none pay for the costs they impose on water supplies They don’t pay for the direct costs of treating the water to remove the pollution And they don’t pay the indirect costs associated with lower value for the water resources as a recreational resource Why?

U.S. Dam Policy 5,500 large dams; 100,000 small dams
95% of all dams are private; but the largest are all public Why build dams? What are the benefits? Hydropower Irrigation (store water for when needed) Flood control Flat water recreation

Environmental Cost of Dams
Severe ecosystem disruption Seasonal flows disrupted Flow itself disrupted Temperature changes Trap stream sediment Consider the Colorado River Adverse impacts on wildlife and riverine habitat Disruption of fish runs Salmon in Pacific Northwest

Other Costs Promotes rent-seeking behavior
Dams are often built even when they cannot possibly be justified on economic grounds Disrupts markets and interferes with “efficient” choices Decommissioning costs

Government Role The big dams are all subsidized by the government
Bureau of Reclamation Army Corps of Engineers Tennessee Valley Authority Consider the “public works” nature of many of the projects Why were subsidies necessary?

Bureau of Reclamation Reclamation Act of 1902
Allowed interest free loans for water projects to be paid over ten years Available to farmers who owned no more than 160 acres and lived on the land (residency)

1939 Amendments Extended pay back period on interest free loans to 50 years, which amounted to a 90% subsidy Rollover policy allowed the Bureau to extend the 50 year period to the time the last unit of a project was completed The result has been that in some cases the pay back period extends out for nearly 100 years Specifically authorized shifting costs from irrigators to electrical consumers Broad authority for further subsidies (water service contracts) which allow Bureau to share construction costs 160 acre limit honored in the breach (By 1979, more than 75% of water furnished from Bureau projects was going to farms exceeding 160 acre limit.)

Central Valley Project Example
Rollover policy: CVP first authorized as a federal project in Repayment has been extended through 2030 According to Natural Resources Defense Council study, subsidies for CVP amount to $300 million/year -- $183/acre . Highest subsidies going to Westlands which was fouling Kesterson Wildlife Refuge Subsidies for surplus crops. In 1980's 59% of CVP land was growing surplus crops.

1982 Reform Act Abolished residency requirements
Extended acreage limit to 960 acres Allowed leased lands, but "full cost" pricing for tracts in excess of 960 acres Farmers had to renegotiate under the new law by 1987 or be subject to full cost pricing for all lands in excess of 160 acres. Peterson v. United States, 899 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1990): Court upheld the "hammer" clause in Reform Act. Court found that water users did not have a vested contract right to the water (beyond 160 acres) at the contract price.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Much more prominent in the East and Midwest, but some presence in the West as well Projects not so much for irrigation, but rather for flood control, hydropower, and navigation As with the Bureau many Corps projects cannot be justified economically Corps introduced “river basin accounting” whereby the vast subsidies to one project could be hidden by lumping it together with other projects (like hydro) that make a lot of money

Colorado River: Grand Canyon http://www.nps.gov/grca/grandcanyon/maps/

Bureau of Reclamation Photo: The Glen Canyon Dam http://www. usbr

Lake Powell (2003) The white area shows the high-water mark from

The Proposal to Drain Lake Powell
Pros Ecology Fish Waste Silt Risk of spillway failure Cons Silt threat is overstated Restoration will take centuries Waste is overstated

Denver Post: July 5, 2004 “Plummeting water levels in Lake Powell have drastically slashed electricity generation at the reservoir's Glen Canyon Dam, forcing power authorities to cut deliveries to utilities from the Front Range to Provo, Utah.” “Federal officials fear that $100 million worth of hydropower generated annually by Lake Powell could dry up completely by if dam managers continue releasing water at pre-drought rates.” “The five-year drought has already drained Lake Powell to 43 percent of capacity ….That lost … "hydraulic head," has slashed the dam's generating capacity by some 30 percent….” Lake Powell was 95% full at the beginning of 2000!

Santa Fe New Mexican September 10, 2004
“$20 million plan for generating station in drought-stricken Lake Powell” The article discusses a $20 million proposal to drill new tunnels into the sandstone walls to divert water to the Navajo Generating Station for cooling water. The plant helps run the pumps needed to deliver Colorado River water to the Phoenix area Current tunnels may go dry if Lake Powell drops another 100’. If the drought continues the water may drop that much by This would also force closure of the hydro station.

Water Allocation Law Riparian systems have historically dominated the Eastern United States Prior appropriation systems have historically dominated the West Many Eastern states are moving toward permit systems that arguably have more in common with prior appropriation law than riparian law And Western states now clearly recognize instream uses as deserving of protection

Harris v. Brooks Mashburn (Harris’ lessee) operates a boating and fishing camp Brooks irrigates a rice crop Brooks’ use of water dropped lake levels to the point that Mashburn had to give up his business Suppose that Brooks is required to give up farming to provide water for Mashburn Who wins? Is this the best result? The most “efficient” result?

Classic Riparian Doctrine
Who is entitled to riparian water rights? What limits, if any, apply to the place of use? “On-tract" limitation, but most states allow off-tract use if no objection by other riparians, or if no harm, or if reasonable Rights must be used in watershed of origin How much water can a riparian use? Natural flow theory evolved to reasonable use/correlative rights theory More recently, some states follow Restatement (2d) of Torts test Rights do not depend on extent of riparian frontage, but that may affect what is deemed reasonable For what purposes? Absolute right to use water for domestic purposes

The Nature of Riparian Rights
Right to make reasonable use of water (correlative with all other riparians) Right to use surface for recreation, fishing, boating In most jurisdictions extends to surface of entire water body, not just frontage or wedge Right to wharf out Requires federal permit on “navigable waters” Surface rights and wharfing rights apply across the United States regardless of water allocation doctrine

Restatement of Torts § 850 Liability Rule: Riparian is liable for unreasonable uses that cause harm No cause of action unless harm occurs

Restatement of Torts § 850A (A balancing test)
(a) reasonableness of use; (b) suitability to watercourse; (c) economic value; (d) social value of use; (e) extent and amount of harm; (f) practicality of avoiding harm by adjusting uses or methods; (g) practicality of avoiding harm by adjusting quantities used; (h) protection of existing uses; (i) justice of requiring person causing harm to bear cost. (Coase would say these are reciprocal harms.)

What’s wrong with the riparian doctrine?
It lacks certainty. How so? It imposes artificial limits on place of use. How so? It is inefficient. Consider how conflicts are resolved in riparian jurisdictions. Should the entire doctrine be scrapped? What are the alternatives?

Q & D 4: What lands qualify as riparian?
“Source of title”: Only those tracts of land that have also included riparian lands qualify for water rights “Unity of Title”: All tracts of land that are presently riparian qualify for riparian rights Note however, that riparian rights can be severed by an express conveyance of such rights. The grantee stands in the shoes of the riparian grantor.

Botton v. State (note 7) State owns a small tract of land with a boat launch and access for fishing on Phantom Lake – a 63 acre lake that is non-navigable for title purposes Riparian owners complain that allowing public access is an unreasonable exercise of the State’s riparian rights Is the State like any other riparian for purposes of the law? If not, why not?

Protecting Streams in Riparian States
Note that, in theory, only riparians can protect natural stream flows and water levels in riparian states They can assert reasonable rights to fish, recreate etc. They can claim that uses that harm the public interest are not reasonable The State, as trustee, might also be in a position to make such public interest claims States can also exert political pressure on users to protect stream flows

Eastern Permit Systems
Misleading to call them “regulated riparian” systems The fundamental principal that water rights attach to riparian land is generally rejected In its place, water users are required to obtain a permit While temporal priority is not determinative, it is often a consideration in whether to grant or renew a permit Permits are often limited to a term of years Note that the Charter Annex proposal would largely move the Great Lakes States toward this type of system

Permit Systems Approximately 19 Eastern/Midwestern states have some kind of permit system but they vary greatly The chief advantage is that they allow the State to make a judgment about adverse impacts BEFORE the use goes forward Under the riparian systems once a use has commenced, and reliance on that use has developed, it becomes very hard to force changes Moreover, it can only be done in court Ohio Revised Code §§ 1501 (permits); 1521 (registration)

Franco-Am. Charolaise, Ltd. RB v. Okla. W
City wants to increase appropriation for municipal purposes; riparians claim that the City's use interferes with their reasonable riparian uses. Legislature passed law in 1963 abolishing unused riparian rights Under this law, pre-existing riparian rights had to be “perfected” under statutory mechanism Court finds that the legislation effected a taking in violation of State constitution Is an unused riparian right a vested property right? Consider the nature of water rights Dissent suggests riparian rights are subject to limits and even forfeiture. Majority misperceives the “denominator”

Compare: In Re: Waters of Long Valley Creek
Stream adjudication process (California) Ramelli claimed unused riparian rights. Court found that uncertainty of unused riparian rights creates problems for state water management. Court acknowledged that State cannot constitutionally extinguish unused riparian rights Nonetheless, the Court allows the State to subordinate unused riparian rights to other uses This effectively extinguishes them. Why?

Prior Appropriation Dominant system in the Western U.S.
Basic principles: Water occurring in natural condition is held by the state, in trust for the people Excludes diffuse surface water; unconnected groundwater Private users can acquire a vested right to use water for a particular purposes Water rights limited to beneficial uses Priority of appropriation gives the better right “first in time, first in right” Usually determined by date of permit application (compare Colorado) Senior rights must be fully satisfied before juniors receive water (No sharing in times of shortage) Riparian rights to “wharf out” and use water for recreational purposes remain

Historical Context Mineral rights in Western mining camps were acquired by the first person to possess and maintain the claim Water was needed to process minerals Because limited supplies were available in many parts of the West, water was allocated in the same way as minerals When the farmers began settling the West, they realized that the system devised by the miners was far better suited to their interests than the riparian system They received secure and often very generous rights at the expense of future settlers

Legal Rules and Issues “Beneficial use” is “the basis, the measure, and the limit of the water right.” May be relevant to type of use and quantity of water Water quantity relates to waste (“duty” of water) Rights are vested but amount of water may be in flux While priority typically determined from date of application, paper rights are not enough Change of use or place of use allowed only if “no injury” to all existing appropriators Water rights may be lost through non-use Abandonment Forfeiture Problems relating to instream flows Application of the public interest standard

Other Related Issues Hybrid systems Tributary groundwater
Along 100th meridian and on West coast Tributary groundwater Interconnected with surface water Conjunctive management and use Federal reserved water rights Implied rights associated with reserved lands Pueblo rights and prescriptive rights are rare (and thus not especially important)

Visualizing the System
Typically applies in areas with mountains which store winter snow and release large quantities of water in Spring Seniors tend to be downstream; juniors upstream. makes it easier for juniors to steal senior water! return flows water quality issues

Typical Permit Process
Water rights are issued by the State as follows: Prospective water user files an application Application is approved by State water official (water permit) Water is used for the approved purpose (the applicant proves up on her right by demonstrating actual use for the approved purpose) Water right is granted Colorado is somewhat unique in having water rights issued by courts. In all other PA states, water rights are issued by a state water official or agency

Prior Appropriation Suppose only 20 cfs available
Suppose 90% of water lost between Jones and Williams Suppose Compute, Inc employs more Does it matter that stream is dewatered? Does it matter that user is not riparian? Can Computer, Inc. buy Jones’ right? Can you acquire a water right that may be available only in wet years? Can you hold water without using it?

Storage (Reservoir) Rights
Water from reservoirs raises unique issues Storage rights are generally for a volume of water Reservoirs are usually subject to the one-filling rule Must take water when told (generally in the early Spring) or it is credited against account Carry-over storage counts toward current allocation. Generally, the initial diversion from the stream is the one that must satisfy the priority requirement Secondary users of reservoir water generally fall outside the PA system That is why users of reservoir water with late priorities often get water even where more senior users have been cut off

Prior Appropriation Criticized
It may not make sense to fully protect an inefficient senior user at the expense of a more efficient junior user Sufficient certainty could be maintained by protecting the senior’s right only to the point of maximizing efficient Does the prior appropriation doctrine have sufficient flexibility to adapt itself to changing values and needs? Is the doctrine too cumbersome to efficiently accommodate water transfers? Despite theory of state ownership, instream flows and values were historically ignored Changing today, but instream protections almost always suffer from late priorities

Beneficial Use “The basis, the measure, and the limit” of a water right Professor Neuman notes that concept is rarely used to demand true conservation But conceivably, it could be used to demand much more efficient water uses IID example

Imperial Irrigation District
AREA SERVED Gross acreage 1,061,637 Irrigated area ,202 Average Agricultural use per year 5.6 AF/acre (varies per crop and soil type) Water delivered thru All-American Canal MAF/yr. NOTE: Ninety-eight percent of the water IID transports is used for agriculture. The remaining two percent is then delivered to nine Imperial Valley cities, treated to safe drinking water standards, and distributed to residential water customers

Imperial Irrigation District
Map Salton Sea was formed between 1905 and 1907 when poorly constructed irrigation canals burst and Salton Basin received almost the entire flow of the Colorado River for more than a year. The Sea has continued to exist as a result of runoff from IID irrigation

IID Case John Elmore (a farmer) owned land near Salton Sea Threatened with inundation by rising sea levels Water Resources Board requires IID to develop a conservation plan No doubt that the intrusion on IID’s water rights was “substantial” But it did not necessarily interfere with vested rights Water rights are limited to reasonable uses Using water for beneficial purposes may nonetheless be unreasonable “Everything is in the process of changing or becoming in water law”

Typical Permit Process
Water rights are issued by the State as follows: Prospective water user files an application Application is approved by State water official (water permit) Water is used for the approved purpose. (The applicant proves up on her right by demonstrating actual use for the approved purpose) Water right is granted Colorado is somewhat unique in having water rights issued by courts. In all other PA states, water rights are issued by a state water official or agency

The Public Interest Increasingly important in allocating water rights
But application of public interest standard is uneven at best In granting permits to divert water, how should the States consider the public interest? Balancing/opportunity cost approach in California Code (page 761) is becoming more common Alaska code takes a similar approach Burden of proof is generally on the applicant The public interest arises in both initial applications and water transfers But see Sleeper case (N.M) and Dep’t of Ecology case (Wash.)

Instream Flows Many instream flows remain available to protect because
Large downstream users demand that water remain in the stream to their headgate Many prized streams are in higher elevation lands, closer to the headwaters on public lands and above irrigation areas Early problems with States that required a “diversion”

Preserving Instream Flows in PA States
Use the public interest standard, where available, to deny applications that would interfere with stream flows. Deny new applications on streams that would interfere with minimum flow levels Issue appropriations to State Game and Fish agencies or private parties for an instream use This last option is the most common although only a few states allow private parties to holds instream flows rights (See Thompson article) Efforts to reallocate existing rights to instream flows are controversial and they have not proved very successful. NOTE 3: Preserving stream flows in riparian states is easier in theory than in practice.

The Public Trust Doctrine
Illinois Central RR. v. Illinois (p. 105) State legislature authorized the sale of the bed of a significant portion of Chicago Harbor (in Lake Michigan) to the railroad. Several years later the State repealed the legislation authorizing the sale. The Railroad sued, alleging that their rights had vested. The U.S. Supreme Court held that title to the bed of a navigable lake was held in trust for all the people and that the railroad grant was therefore revocable The State holds trust property as trustee Is the notion of the state as trustee for water resources applicable in riparian states?

Federal Water Projects in California http://www. water. ca

State Water Projects in California http://www. water. ca

Local Water Projects in California http://www. water. ca

Mono Lake http://www. parks. ca. gov/lat_long_map/default. asp

National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County
Court tries to reconcile the public trust doctrine with the prior appropriation doctrine Is there a conflict? How does the court reconcile the two doctrines? How does the public trust doctrine affect California water rights? Does it apply to riparian rights in California?

Q & D: Mono Lake Decision
Could parties have used “beneficial use” or “public interest” doctrines to limit LA’s water rights? Note that the aqueduct was subject to a right-of-way issued by the federal government. Does that offer any possibilities? Suppose the Mono Lake brine shrimp had been designated an endangered species? Once LA’s rights were readjusted, does LA then have a vested right to what remains?

Q & D: Mono Lake Can a State renounce its public trust in managing the State’s water resources? Consider that the State gives water rights to the first applicant without charge Does it matter whether the State claims ownership of the water? What’s the difference between public trust and public interest? Consider that public interest protections may affect a wide range of values impacted by water resource use The public trust arises from the public’s ownership of the water itself

Groundwater Why is groundwater important?
A much more significant resource than surface water If you consider only fresh water resources, essentially removing ocean water, ground-water accounts for 2/3 of the fresh water resources of the world If you further remove glaciers and ice caps and consider only ACTIVE groundwater regimes, groundwater makes up 95% of all of the remaining freshwater 3.5% comes from surface water and 1.5% from soil moisture

Confined vs. Unconfined Aquifers
Confined aquifers produce artesian wells Potentiometric surface: pressure surface. The level at which the water will rise in a well drilled into a confined aquifer. Unconfined or water table aquifers Water in a well in an unconfined aquifer will rise to the level of water table. Unsaturated zone (vadose/zone of aeration) Tension-saturated zone - capillary fringe.

Groundwater Concepts and Terms
“Cone of depression” The inverted cone that forms around the pressure surface of an artesian well, or in the aquifer for a water table well. Groundwater is generally measured in gallons per minute (1 gpm = cfs; 446 gpm = 1cfs) Porosity (amount of space in voids) Storativity depends on porosity. Permeability (ability to transmit water) Transmissivity depends on permeability.

The Perils of Groundwater Pumping
Groundwater use is increasing at a much faster pace than surface water 2/3 for agriculture 11% for mining Groundwater “mining” more common Can cause subsidence and loss of storage Problems Mineral development breaches aquifers Bottled water industry focuses on headwaters Irrigation needed to satisfy the market (McDonald’s French fries)

Groundwater Diagrams

Aquifer Diagram www.epa.gov/safewater/kids/wsb/354.pdf

Cone of Depression http://www. dnr. state. wi

Cone of Depression http://www. arc. losrios

Saltwater Intrusion http://www. arc. losrios

Saltwater Intrusion http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs030-02/

Groundwater Doctrines
RULE PRINCIPLE PLACE OF USE LIMITS Absolute Ownership/English Rule Rule of capture No limits American Reasonable Use On tract limits; reasonable use limits (can use off-tract if no adverse impacts on others) Restatement § 858 Shared use; liable to others for unreasonable harm caused by extractions in excess of reasonable share no limits on place of use Ohio adopted this rule in Cline v. American Aggregates, Prior Appropriation Priority no limits on place of use; beneficial use/ maximization of resource Correlative Rights Shared use On-tract limits unless other on-tract rights met; rights shared w/ other landowners

Sample Aquifer 5000 acre feet of water in storage; 500 AF annual recharge
Francis Farmer owns 320 acres; farms the land; withdraws 1000 AF/year, half goes back as recharge; first in time; 400 foot deep well Randy Rancher owns 160 acres; withdraws 500 AF/year for dude ranch and aquatic park on site; 100% consumptive system; 1000 foot deep well Prince Power Company owns 160 acres; exports 500 AF/year to power plant off-site; 100% consumptive use; 1000 foot deep well

Hubbard v. Dep’t of Ecology
Hubbard had groundwater permits Conditioned upon requirement that they would have to stop pumping when water levels fell below minimum flows But the impact from the Hubbard’s pumping was minimal (0.004% of river’s flow during low flow – 4 gallons of every 100,000 gallons) Should Washington treat the groundwater permits as part of the surface water system? Note that Colorado has a similarly strict rule If the amount withdrawn will deplete the flow by 0.1% within 100 years then it is “tributary groundwater.”

Conjunctive Management of Groundwater
Term used to describe joint management of interconnected surface and groundwater systems The result in Hubbard allows surface water laws to trump groundwater laws This does not always lead to an efficient result Consider Templeton v. Pecos Valley (NM) Consider Alamosa-La Jara Water Users v. Gould (Colorado, 1983) Groundwater aquifers contained 2 billion acre feet Surface and groundwater was interconnected Junior well users interfered with senior surface users but plenty of water for everyone if everyone used groundwater Court required seniors to shift to groundwater to maximize use of water

Q & D: Groundwater Consider how the State of Washington might better address the Hubbard’s situation Consider the cumulative impact of small domestic users 15 million private wells If they average 25 gpm that’s 375 million gallons/minute Problems of safe yield Usually defined to mean the amount of water you can remove without mining the aquifer Should States limit withdrawals to the “safe yield”? What if the aquifer has limited annual recharge? Colorado has a “3-mile test” When a new groundwater application is filed they ask whether the aquifer within a 3 mile radius of the well would be depleted by more than 40% after 25 years of operating the well

Water Federalism State is the primary authority on water resource management Do States “own” the water? At a minimum, States have regulatory power over water A long tradition of federal acquiescence in State control Arguably States are not owners in a proprietary sense Rather they serve as a trustee for a public resource Consider Irwin v. Phillips California Supreme Court adjudicates water rights as between two trespassers on the public lands

Federal Statutes Mining Law of 1866 recognized appropriative water rights of miners as against later patentees Desert Lands Act of 1877 The Supreme Court suggests that the DLA severed the water from the public domain and made their allocation subject to State law Reclamation Act of 1902 Requires Secretary of the Interior to follow State law in carrying out the Act Construed to mean that Secretary must seek State permits for federal water projects Was there any remaining role for the federal government?

Federal Authority Over Water
Despite its acquiescence to State authority, the federal government continues to play an important role in water resource management Commerce power and regulation of navigation gave rise to Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Corps of Engineers issues permits for obstructions to navigation on navigable waters Could Western States nonetheless impose prior appropriation on federal lands throughout the West? United States v. Rio Grande Dam suggests not

Federal Reserved Water Rights: The Winters Doctrine
Winters v. United States Milk River runs along northern boundary of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation What was the purpose of the reservation of lands for the tribes? “The power of the government to reserve waters and exempt them from appropriation under the state laws is not denied, and could not be.” Why weren’t these reserved rights repealed by the Act admitting Montana into the Union? Extreme to believe that Congress would have repealed the reservation one year after reserved How much water was reserved for the Indians?

Q & D: Indian Reserved Rights
What is the source of the government’s power to reserve water? Under equal footing doctrine, Consider that a reservation is NOT a grant from the Indians Quantification of Indian Reserved Rights PIA standard for agricultural rights Instream flows for fishing rights PIA standard reserves a lot of water some judges seem inclined to change it 4-4 vote in In Re: Adjudication of the Big Horn

Quantification: McCarran Amendment
What if a State wants to know how much water Indian Tribes hold? McCarran Amendment is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity Authorizes adjudication of federal water rights (Indian and non-Indian), but only in general stream adjudications But need not be an entire river system The Supreme Court has generally held that federal courts should defer to State courts in hearing these disputes.

Cappaert v. United States
President Truman designated the Devil’s Hole National Monument in 1952 to protect an underground desert and a unique fish species – the desert pupfish Cappaert petitioners own a large ranch where they grow crops and graze cattle They operate large groundwater wells that are drawing down the aquifer and causing level of the pool to decline Water rights were acquired after 1952 The Proclamation reserved sufficient water to carry out the purposes of the reservation – but no more Does the doctrine differ for non-Indian rights?

United States v. New Mexico
Gila National Forest U.S. claims reserved waters for instream flows for aesthetic, recreational and fish preservation purposes Organic Administration Act of 1897 established forests for only two purposes – to secure “favorable conditions of water flows,” and “to furnish a continuous supply of timber” NOTE: Dissent suggests there are really three purposes MUSYA of 1960 expanded purposes for which forests were established to include outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. Court holds that water not reserved for the “secondary” purposes set out in MUSYA. Is this true? Was MUSYA properly before the Court? Is its holding dictum?

Reserved Rights in National Forests
In New Mexico, Rehnquist argues that “in the case of the Rio Mimbres, a river [that] is fully appropriated, federal reserved water rights will frequently require a gallon for gallon reduction in the amount of water available for water needy state and private appropriators.” In the case of the Gila Forest, at least, this is almost certainly not true. Why? What was the basis for the dissent? Developments in fluvial geomorphology suggest that instream flows may be needed to secure favorable water flows

Reserved Rights in Riparian States
What rules should apply? Consider the Great Lakes Numerous American tribes; over 100 First Nations Do they all have rights? If so, how can they be quantified?

National Forests and Grasslands http://roadless. fs. fed

Other Reserved Lands National Parks, National Monuments, National Recreation and Conservation Areas National Wildlife Refuges Wilderness Areas Potlatch decision was reversed on rehearing Wild and Scenic Rivers BLM Public Lands (unreserved lands) Military reservations

Reserved Rights by Legislation
More and more, Congress (and the President) specifically indicates whether water rights are reserved Wilderness legislation Wild and Scenic Rivers legislation National monuments Often, legislation is held back because no resolution on water rights

Reserved Rights by Settlement
Federal government settled with Montana for several Parks, Refuges, Wilderness Areas, etc. Can States settle with Tribes? Is the federal government an indispensable party?

Reserved Rights Does the federal government have an affirmative obligation to assert such rights? Public trust? Can the federal government be bound by state administrative proceedings? Are federal rights unfairly treated in state court system?

Problem Exercise: Wilderness Water Rights
Does the Wilderness Act create reserved water rights? See 16 U.S.C. §§1131(c); 1133(a); 1133(d)(4); 1133(d)(5) Central Idaho Wilderness Act Consider the way in which the Idaho Supreme Court decided the case and then reversed itself NOTE: The federal government has not appealed the Idaho Supreme Court’s second decision

Intersecting Federal Laws
Clean Water Act Section 401 (State certification) Section 402 program (NPDES) Section 404 program (wetlands) Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation Section 9 takings

Clean Water Act, § 401 State Certification of Federal Permits
For any applicant for a federal permit or license that may result in a discharge into the navigable waters of the United States – State must certify compliance with effluent limits and ambient water quality standards This effectively gives States some measure of control over numerous federal projects, including dams, roads, mineral leases or licenses, timber sales, and perhaps even grazing permits

Clean Water Act, § 402 National pollution discharge elimination system (NPDES) A federal permit program for discharges into navigable waters from a “point source” State programs allow States to issue permits Different, technology-based standards established for pre-existing sources and new sources EPA has established emission standards for categories or classes of facilities

How does water quality impact water quantity?
The solution to pollution is (sometimes) dilution Consider the Chicago Diversion Estimated to reduce the levels of Lakes Michigan and Huron by 6 cm (2 billion gallons per day) Changes the flow of the Chicago River so that it flows out of Lake Michigan rather than into Lake Michigan Flushing flows used to treat sewage water

Clean Water Act, § 404 Permits required for discharges of dredged and fill material into navigable waters Permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Normal farming, silviculture, ranching activities such as plowing, seeding cultivation, minor drainage, harvesting, and upland soil conservation practices are exempt Navigable waters have historically included wetlands Provide important ecosystem services, including water filtering and purification, groundwater recharge, flood protection, wildlife habitat

How do Wetlands Regulation and Water Rights Laws Intersect?
Many wetlands were historically drained for farmland The Great Black Swamp On the other hand, flood irrigation practices sometimes create wetlands, at least temporarily Groundwater use can lower water tables and drain wetlands

SWANCC v. U.S. Army Corps An old, abandoned sand and gravel pit had evolved into a forested area with seasonal and permanent ponds Corps claimed jurisdiction under migratory bird rule Court confirms Riverside Bayview Homes holding that §404 covers wetlands adjacent to navigable waters Majority rejects migratory bird rule Why?

The Scope of §404 after SWANCC
Could Congress adopt the migratory bird rule as an amendment to the CWA? Note Stevens dissent in SWANCC Legislative history indicates that Congress intended that federal jurisdiction under the CWA be given its “broadest possible constitutional interpretation.” Post-SWANCC decisions suggest that the Courts are giving SWANCC its “broadest possible” meaning Do SWANCC and New Mexico (both written by Rehnquist) suggest a similar philosophical approach?

“No Net Loss” of Wetlands
Half of all native wetlands in the United States have been destroyed These wetlands provide important “ecosystem services” Water filtration Flood control Wildlife habitat The economic losses because these services have been compromised is enormous. The replacement value of these services is equally high. How does “no net loss” work? What problems arise at the individual project level?

Compensatory Mitigation and Wetlands Banking
Shift from on-site to off-site mitigation Support for wetland mitigation banks Restored or created wetlands can be banked for future credit toward wetland destruction Should compensation be based upon wetland functions rather than acreage? How do you measure wetlands functions? Why is the banking system working so poorly?

The Meaning of “Navigability”
Navigability for purposes of title to the bed “Navigable in fact” test -- The Daniel Ball Capable of being used in its ordinary condition as a highway for commerce (need not be interstate commerce) Navigability for purposes of the navigation servitude Includes tributaries of navigable waterways but not waterways rendered navigable by improvements Navigability for commerce clause purposes Like title test except reasonable improvements can be made Navigability for public rights of access State test depends on local law (A “pleasure boat” test?) Navigability for purposes of environmental regulation Broadest possible constitutional interpretation?

The Navigation Servitude
The government owes no compensation for the value of land associated with a “navigable” waterway No compensation for loss of access No compensation for loss of flow No compensation for value as a port site

The Endangered Species Act
Provides for listing species as “threatened” or endangered” Requires conservation of listed species (through affirmative federal agency action and a “recovery plan”) Requires consultation and prohibits jeopardy to a listed species, or “adverse modification” of designated “critical habitat” by federal agency actions Where an agency finds jeopardy it must set forth “reasonable prudent alternatives” (RPAs) that would not cause jeopardy Prohibits the taking of a listed species of wildlife (not plants) without a permit

Consider the Case Studies
Edwards Aquifer 8 unique aquatic species listed Middle Rio Grande The silvery minnow Colorado River Basin Four fish species and the southwestern willow flycatcher California/Bay Delta Five fish species Pacific Northwest Numerous species of salmon, steelhead, chum and bull trout

Edwards Aquifer http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/Fs94048/

Silvery Minnow http://ifw2es. fws
Silvery Minnow Fed Reg (2003)

California/Bay Delta Delta smelt, winter run Chinook salmon and three other species threatened by the operation of the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP)

Pacific Northwest Salmon runs of the Columbia River and its tributaries Each run supports a unique species While the Northwest has a lot of water, dams have blocked salmon migration, and pollution from urban runoff, farming and logging threatens stream quality

Tulare Lake Basin WSD v. U.S.
What is the nature of the water rights at issue in this case? The FWS set forth “reasonable and prudent alternatives” that limited the amount of water available to the Districts Consider the “takings” analysis Was this a physical appropriation of water? Why does it matter? Does the contract limit the title? Are you persuaded by the Court’s effort to distinguish O’Neill? How does the public trust doctrine fit into the Court’s analysis? Could California impose limits to avoid the taking?

Q & D: Pages How does this analysis look under the Penn Central test? Should a taking be found in the situation where there is a “hybrid” drought – one caused by natural and regulatory conditions?

Interstate Allocation of Water
Judicial allocation Equitable apportionment Allocation by interstate compact Congressional allocation Which do you think is the preferable method? Why?

Equitable Apportionment
Kansas v. Colorado (1907) Court established the doctrine but refused to apportion the Arkansas River because Kansas failed to show serious harm Colorado v. Wyoming (1922) Court apportioned Laramie River suggesting that it would essentially follow priorities (since both Colorado and Wyoming used the PA system), but it actually protected certain out of priority uses in Colorado New Jersey v. New York (1931) Court apportioned Delaware River with mass allocations and minimum stream flows Nebraska v. Wyoming (1945) Court apportioned North Platte River but refused to adhere to strict priorities Colorado v. New Mexico Reasonable conservation measures required but marginal New Mexico irrigation district only need use economically feasible practices

Interstate Compacts Compact Clause: Art. 1, Sec. 10. cl. 3: Advantages
“No State shall, without the consent of Congress, … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State….” Advantages Avoids dormant commerce clause problems Promotes efforts to find common ground among States As federal law a compact trumps inconsistent state law Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (1981) Disadvantages States are often reluctant to concede authority to a Commission that they may not be able to control

Pecos River Compact Texas v. New Mexico Pecos River Compact
Headwaters are in New Mexico Texas upset that New Mexico is taking too much water Pecos River Compact States agreed to provide water equivalent to that available under “1947 condition.” Flows rarely met the 1947 baseline levels New Mexico claims that standard was mistaken Texas complained that it was not receiving water required by the Inflow-Outflow Manual Compact Commission consists of only two voting members – one from Texas and one from New Mexico The result was that disputes could never be resolved

Compacts Politically difficult to structure dispute resolution mechanism with two States Neither State wants to give up control The result may be gridlock Where compact or other apportionment of water applies, individuals within the States are bound by water limits Hinderlider v. La Plata & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. Compacts rarely address groundwater Should they nonetheless be construed to encompass groundwater? Draft Great Lakes Compact addresses both ground and surface water

Delaware River Basin Compact
Good model for Great Lakes States but politically difficult to achieve Includes Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania Each State has one voting member and the federal representative is a voting member Commission has broad powers to manage virtually all aspects of river management Water quality; water allocation; hydro power generation; recreational use; flood control; watershed protection Operates under a comprehensive plan; actions not approved unless consistent with plan

Federal-State Compacts
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact (Florida, Georgia, Alabama and U.S.) Alabama-Coosa-Tallaposa River Basin Compact (Georgia, Alabama, and U.S.) These compacts provide for water allocation, as well as water quality protection and biodiversity conservation

Congressional Apportionment
Advantages Perhaps the most efficient way to allocate water No dormant commerce clause issues Direct protection of federal rights Breaks impasse that may develop among States Disadvantages Can be perceived as heavy-handed But in recent years Congress has been very protective of State’s rights Example of Water Quality Control Act Amendments of 1986 – Gives every Great Lakes state veto over out of basin diversions Interferes with State control over water

The Law of the River Historical Flows
: MAF : MAF 1922 Colorado River Compact Upper basin must deliver 75 MAF to lower basin over ten years (but they can’t withhold water not needed for municipal or agricultural uses). Arizona refused to ratify. Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 Authorized Boulder (Hoover) Dam and the All-American Canal Pre-approved lower basin compact allocation; Gila flows to AZ Mexican Treaty (1944) 1.5 MAF (Under the Colorado River Compact, this amount is supplied first from any surplus, and then by equal amounts from the upper and lower basins. Article III(c).

The Law of the River II 1948 Upper Basin Compact
Arizona: 50,000 AF; Colorado: 51.75%; New Mexico: 11.25%; Utah: 23.00%; Wyoming: 14.00% Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 Glen Canyon Dam (No Echo Park Dam) Blue Mesa on Gunnison; Navajo on San Juan; Flaming Gorge on Green; Central Utah Project 1965 Arizona v. California decision Tributaries to Arizona; Congressional apportionment of river pursuant to contracts with the Secretary of the Interior Arizona 2.8 MAF; California 4.4 MAF; Nevada 0.3 MAF Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 Central AZ Project approved; Grand Canyon dams rejected; 5 upper basin dams approved; coal fired power plant approved; ban on even studying water diversions from Pacific Northwest

Colorado River Issues Intra-basin transfers and water marketing
Promoted by the Interior Department with apparent power to make allocation decisions under Arizona v. California decision In 2001, Nevada agreed to pay Arizona $170M to bank 1.2 MAF Mexican Treaty issues Quality and quantity/Colorado River Delta Environmental problems Endangered species Salton Sea Colorado River Delta

Q & D: Colorado River Upper Basin is currently using only 4 MAF of its 7.5 MAF. Can they sell their excess to a lower basin State? To a private company or municipality in the lower basin? To a private company in the Upper Basin that uses the River to deliver to a customer in the lower basin? Why do you think this has not yet been a big issue? If there had been no compact, how do you think the Court would have allocated the River? Should the Court simply recognize priorities across state boundaries? What practical problems would arise?

Missouri River Basin http://infolink.cr.usgs.gov/Maps/basin-tribes.gif

Missouri River Heavily developed at taxpayer expense
Numerous dams provide irrigation, flood control, navigation improvements, and electric power generation No congressional apportionment as such, but heavy federal role effectively keeps river under federal control 27 Indian tribes in the Basin create significant uncertainty about the amount of non-Indian water available over the long term.

International Water Law
214 multinational water basins 40% of the world’s population 13 River basins are shared by five or more countries To what extent can interstate allocation principles be translated to the international arena? Harmon Doctrine of absolute sovereignty To what extent will this hinder or help compromise? The Trail Smelter case “No state has the right to use or permit the use of its territory is such as a manner as to cause injury in or tow another territory … when the case is of serious consequence….” Principle 21, Stockholm Declaration; Principle 2: Rio

Helsinki Rules on the Use of Waters in International Rivers
“Each basin State is entitled, within its territory, to a reasonable and equitable share in the beneficial uses of an international drainage basin.” (1966) Not adopted but influential in addressing conflicts

Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses
General provision for equitable and reasonable utilization and participation Based on enumerated factors Obligation not to cause significant harm, and to mitigate harm that has been caused Trail Smelter concept Exchange of water data Joint protection of the ecology Only 12 (downstream?) countries have signed the convention. It requires 35 to take effect

Rio Grande River Basin http://mrgbi.fws.gov/ Resources/Dams/

Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909
Applies to all boundary waters between U.S. and Canada Navigation in all navigable boundary waters to remain “free and open” Establishes the International Joint Commission (IJC) Six commissioners – 3 from each country Authority to review and approve uses, obstructions, and diversions “affecting the natural level or flow of boundary waters on the other side of the line.” Art. III. Decisions by majority vote Examines questions and issues reports on referrals from either government Domestic uses preferred over navigation, which are preferred over power and irrigation Each party reserves exclusive rights to divert water

Nile River Basin http://encarta. msn

Nile River Basin http://earthtrends. wri

Problems Water scarcity
Annual renewable freshwater is less than 1000 cubic meters/year = 11,772 cubic feet/year = cubic feet per day = 241 gallons per day Water quality Too much agriculture 80% of water goes to agriculture Egypt – the biggest user and the most dependent on the Nile – is the farthest downstream 1959 bilateral treaty between Sudan and Egypt tries to allocate the entire River to these two countries

The Hydrologic Cycle water. usgs

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The Hydrologic Cycle water. usgs"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

The Hydrologic Cycle water. usgs

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The Hydrologic Cycle water. usgs"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback