water and cities
DESCRIPTION
Water and Cities. Richard M. Glick Oregon City Attorneys Association May 3, 2013. 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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Water and CitiesRichard M. Glick
Oregon City Attorneys AssociationMay 3, 2013
![Page 2: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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 537.230
![Page 5: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Clackamas Extension
![Page 8: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Clackamas Extension
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
![Page 9: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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 540.510(3) allows regional water solutions– Fish conditions not adequate
![Page 10: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Storm Water
Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council (U. S. Supreme Court 1/8/13)– http://www.energyenvironmentallaw.com/
2013/01/10/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
![Page 11: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
L.A. County Flood Control Dist. v. NRDC
![Page 12: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Storm Water
Virginia DOT v. EPA ( U. S. Dist. Ct. 1/3/13)– http://www.accotink.org/
Accotink_Case_Decision.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
![Page 14: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Storm Water
Iowa League of Cities v. EPA, No. 11-3412 (8th Cir. 2013) http://www.imla.org/images/_Teleconf_/
2013/5.2.2013-iowa%20league%20v.%20epa%20-%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
![Page 15: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
WaterQuality 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
![Page 18: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Water Quality Trading
Fascinating blog post:– http://www.energyenvironmentallaw.com/
2013/04/19/can-we-please-talk-about-outcomes-for-a-change/
![Page 20: Water and Cities](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56816699550346895dda84d3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Rick Glick (503)778-5210 tel [email protected]
Davis Wright Tremaine1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97201-5610