Source: http://blog.cyberease.net/?page_id=82
Timestamp: 2017-11-19 01:09:06
Document Index: 644081159

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 1257', '§ 1243', '§ 1259', '§ 1707', '§ 1707', '§ 1707', '§ 1259', '§174', '§ 120', '§ 82', '§ 82', '§ 82', '§ 2', '§ 82', '§ 82', '§ 82', '§ 2', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§51', '§5', '§ 143', '§ 61', '§ 537', '§537', '§537', '§ 46', '§ 11', 'art=1']

Freshwater Inflow-Related Policies | Freshwater Inflow Tools
Policies can alleviate the pressure on the freshwater supply by ensuring less detrimental practices are used in construction projects and water removal events. Policies allow agencies to issue permits that can be used to monitor water use and set restrictions that conserve the water supply. Some relevant policies are described in this section.
Many states in the United States require people wanting to withdrawal substantial amounts of water to obtain a permit. These permits may apply to both surface and groundwater withdrawals and may stimulate practices that help protect other water users and/or wastewater. The person or persons receiving the permit receives reassurance that the allocation of this water will be available.
Industrial discharges. Source: chenected.aiche.org
Discharge permits are statewide permits that limit the discharge of pollutants by avoiding pollution of groundwater or prevent the mismanagement of wastewater treatment plants (Washington 2013). Industrial facilities that have any wastewater discharges to wastewater treatment plants must also attain a discharge permit unless the facility has previously obtained a pretreatment discharge permit (Washington 2013).
Discharge Permitting resources:
Washington State Governor’s Office of Regulatory Assistance: http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/permithandbook/permitdetail.asp?id=20
Assessment of water requirements. Source: www.r2usa.com
Instream flow requirements are the amount of flows or releases necessary to maintain the health and integrity of estuarine ecosystems (TCEQ 2009). Instream flow requirements are generally set to the minimum flows necessary, but they can also include maximum flow limits for hydropower dams, seasonal releases for fish spawning, or weekend releases for recreational purposes (TCEQ 2009). There are a variety of methods used to set flow standards.
In Texas, Senate Bill 3 passed in 2007, which calls on scientists, stakeholders, and officials to address two issues: how much water is needed to keep the state’s estuarine systems healthy and how the state can protect that water (TCEQ 2009).
Resources for Texas Estuaries:
Texas Water Matters: The Environmental Flows Allocation Process:
http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/permithandbook/permitdetail.asp?id=20
Source: www.tampabaywater.org
A reservoir is a place where water is collected and stored either naturally or artificially, general for human use including consumption, irrigation, electric facilities, etc. Reservoir management is a process of developing and implementing a reservoir management plan using rules and regulations in order to provide reliable water supplies. In some cases reservoir plans also endeavor to protect the ecosystem by requiring the most efficient and environmentally sound exploration and exploitation processes. Reservoir management teams who create the reservoir management plan are composed of reservoir engineers, field operators, reservoir geologists, production and facility engineers, and field staff.
Inversions and interbasin transfers
Interbasin Transfer. Source: techalive.mtu.edu
Inversions and interbasin transfers are defined as the artificial withdrawal of water by dams, tunnels, canals or pipelines for anthropogenic uses, ranging from industrial to agricultural use. This removal can be done by diversion of a river’s course, or by the assemblage of a large waterway with the ability to transfer large amounts of water (Micklin 1985). Licensing and regulations including pumping regulations can be imposed on the diversion of water practices, which can reduce the amount of water, removed as well as increase irrigation efficiency.
Flood Plane Modification
Floodplain modification. Source: www.rjh-consultants.com
Flood planes are terrestrial areas adjacent to waterways that are exposed to periodic inundation (DRDEESESAOSA 1991). Inundation refers to the submergence of vegetation in water. Rivers and stream constantly change to some degree due to precipitation and runoff events. A major source of river and stream modification is anthropogenic development. When a river or stream experiences a heavy or continuous rainfall that exceeds the ability of water to percolate the adjacent soil and the flow capacity of a stream or river, flooding occurs (DRDEESESAOSA 1991). Flooding is when the water in a river or stream pores over the banks and onto the terrestrial area surrounding it.
Flood plane modification policies may prohibit development projects that cause river and stream modification or require methods aimed at flood control (DRDEESESAOSA 1991).
Floodplain Definition and Flood Plane Hazards:
http://www.oas.org/dsd/publications/Unit/oea66e/ch08.htm
Erosion control using a Gabion Erosion Cage. Source: www.gabion1.com.au
Topsoil vegetation protects soil erosion through root growth which holds the soils in place. The removal of vegetation increases the rate of erosion from natural weathering processes including water carrying off soil in runoff and wind (EPA 2012). The removal of natural vegetation and topsoil makes the exposed area particularly susceptible to erosion, causing transformation of existing drainage areas and disturbance of sensitive areas (EPA 2012). Regulations and policies that help prevent topsoil erosion are often implemented. The EPA webpage is a resource that explores some of the sediment and erosion control regulations currently in place in several states (EPA 2012).
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/erosion.cfm
Water quality monitoring. Source: denr.sd.gov
Water quality standards set expectations for the quality of water by controlling pollution (USEPA 2013b. The EPA controls pollution regulation, and are given regulatory powers under the Clean Water Act (USEPA 2013b). The EPA webpage describes the water quality standards for surface waters (USEA 2013b).
EPA: Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters:
Further Texas Policies Resources:
Water Policy in Texas by Ronald C. Griffin
Texas Water Development Board: http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/waterplanning/index.asp
Texas Water Matters: http://www.texaswatermatters.org/resources_links.htm
Overview of State Laws and Commentary Relating to Protection of Instream Flows for Environmental Purposes
*The following literature was put together as part of the CAMEO Project: Building the Foundation- An Integrative Approach to Managing the Dewatering Estuaries. Please note the following information is current as of 2010 and the legislation and statutes may have since changed. For more information about the CAMEO project, please visit: The Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies
States with no flow laws or statutes, and do not require a permit for water allocation:
Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia
States with some instream flow requirements, i.e. water permits:
Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming
States with specific instream flow statutes:
Alaska, California, Hawaii, Texas
<http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/coatoc.htm>
<http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folio.asp>
Alaska Code § 46.15.040(b):
<http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title46/Chapter15/Section040.htm>
“the commissioner may approve an application for removal or permit an appropriation for removal … of water from a lake, river, or stream that is used by fish for spawning, incubation, rearing, or migration … only if the commissioner reserves a volume of water in the lake or an instream flow in the river or stream for the use of fish and to maintain habitat for fish. The commissioner may adjust the volume of water reserved under this subsection if the commissioner, after public notice and opportunity to comment and with the concurrence of the commissioner of fish and game, finds that the best interests of the state are served by the adjustment.” Alaska Code § 46.15.035(c) <http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title46/Chapter15/Section035.htm>
“The commissioner shall issue a permit if the commissioner finds that (1) rights of a prior appropriator will not be unduly affected; (2) the proposed means of diversion or construction are adequate; (3) the proposed use of water is beneficial; and (4) the proposed appropriation is in the public interest. … In determining the public interest, the commissioner shall consider (1) the benefit to the applicant resulting from the proposed appropriation; (2) the effect of the economic activity resulting from the proposed appropriation; (3) the effect on fish and game resources and on public recreational opportunities; (4) the effect on public health; (5) the effect of loss of alternate uses of water that might be made within a reasonable time if not precluded or hindered by the proposed appropriation; (6) harm to other persons resulting from the proposed appropriation; (7) the intent and ability of the applicant to complete the appropriation; and (8) the effect upon access to navigable or public water.” § 46.15.080(a), (b) <http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title46/Chapter15/Section080.htm>
“The state, an agency or a political subdivision of the state, an agency of the United States or a person may apply to the commissioner to reserve sufficient water to maintain a specified instream flow or level of water at a specified point on a stream or body of water, or in a specified part of a stream, throughout a year or for specified times, for (1) protection of fish and wildlife habitat, migration, and propagation; (2) recreation and park purposes; (3) navigation and transportation purposes; and (4) sanitary and water quality purposes. … The commissioner shall issue a certificate reserving the water applied for under this section if the commissioner finds that (1) the rights of prior appropriators will not be affected by the reservation; (2) the applicant has demonstrated that a need exists for the reservation; (3) there is unappropriated water in the stream or body of water sufficient for the reservation; and (4) the proposed reservation is in the public interest.” § 46.15.145(a), (c) <http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title46/Chapter15/Section145.htm>
<http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=45>
<http://www.azwpf.gov/Pubs/FY2009/FY%202009%20Annual%20Report.pdf>
<http://cwcb.state.co.us/StreamAndLake/>
Statutes, Title 37:
<http://cwcb.state.co.us/StreamAndLake/LawsRules/statutes.htm>
Today, the chief architect of California’s water future concerning instream flows is SWRCB [the State Water Resources Control Board]. Harrison C. Dunning, California Instream Flow Protection Law: Then and Now, 36 McGeorge L. Rev. 363, 372 (2005) (noting that “the principal source of protection of instream uses is the process of the… [SWRCB] administration of water rights”); Governor’s Comm’n to Review Cal. Water Rights Law, Final Rep. 105 (Dec. 1978), available at http:// www.swrcb.ca.gov/general/publications/docs/l584a.pdf (discussing SWRCB’s authority to regulate instream uses). SWRCB is a state agency with hundreds of employees, an operating annual budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, and a five member board. See Water Boards, About the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards, http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/about/swrcb.html (last visited Nov. 12, 2006) (discussing composition of board and regional offices); Water Res. Control Bd., Enacted Budget-3950, http://govbud.dof.ca.gov/Enacted/StateAgencyBudgets/3890/3940/department.html (last visited Nov. 12, 2006) (showing SWRCB expenditures of more than 630 million dollars and employment of more than 1,500 positions for 2006-2007 fiscal year). Consideration of fish and *1222 wildlife preservation and enhancement is an overarching statutory requirement for SWRCB. Cal. Water Code § 1257 (West 2006). <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wat&group=01001-02000&file=1250-1259.4>
Indeed, SWRCB instream flow determinations are a condition precedent to issuance of new water rights. See id. § 1243.5 (“In determining the amount of water available for appropriation, the board shall take into account … the amounts of water needed to remain in the source for protection of beneficial uses.”). <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wat&group=01001-02000&file=1250-1259.4>
2121, 2003-2004 Reg. Sess., 2004 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 943 (Cal. 2004) (codified at Cal. Water Code §§ 1259.2, 1259.4 (West 2006)). The geographic scope of this regional instream flow effort is larger than many northeastern states. <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wat&group=01001-02000&file=1250-1259.4>
… *1223 California’s water code is one of the most advanced for instream flow transfers and markets. See Cal. Water Code § 1707 (West 2006) (permitting any water rights holder to petition for a change for purposes of preserving or enhancing wetlands habitat, fish and wildlife resources, or recreation in or on the water).
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wat&group=01001-02000&file=1700-1707>
… In California, any person or entity may own or dedicate an existing water right to instream beneficial use for fish and wildlife and recreation benefit in perpetuity. Id. The one restriction is a prohibition on dedications of new rights. Gregory A. Thomas, Conserving Aquatic Biodiversity: A Critical Comparison of Legal Tools for Augmenting Streamflows in California, 15 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 3, 48 (1996). The transfer and dedication of existing rights to instream use effectively creates a legal *1224 work-around that avoids the precondition of physical possession of water for obtaining a new right. See Aladjem, supra, at 315-16 (describing how the California legislature and water users have developed innovative ways to transfer water in order to protect instream beneficial uses without formal appropriation for those purposes, specifically citing the transfer petitions allowed under the state water code).
… A “quiet revolution” for instream flow took place in California in 1992 when the state legislature amended the water code with section 1707. Cal. Water Code § 1707 (West 1971 & Supp. 2006); Thomas, supra, at 48.
Administrative processing hurdles and cost are two limitations to an active section 1707 market. Gregory A. Thomas, The Future of Water Law Reform in California a Quarter Century After the Governor’s Commission, 36 McGeorge L. Rev. 495, 513 (2005). Because section 1707 is styled as an instream transfer, rigorous transfer standards apply, including the “no-injury” rule. See Cal. Water Code § 1707(b) (West 1971 & Supp. 2006) (subjecting approval to the condition that it will not “unreasonably affect any legal user of water”). Moreover, because so few section 1707 transfers have occurred, inter and intra agency procedures are convoluted and not easily understood, which of course increases willing transferors’ and transferees’ transaction costs. Jesse A. Boyd, Hip Deep: A Survey of State Instream Flow Law from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, 43 Nat. Resources J. 1151, 1170 (2003)
A bigger obstacle is California’s fascination with all things large. The state’s water politics have always been preoccupied with the movement of water from north to south. State Water Res. Control Bd. Cases, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 189, 203-05 (2006). Indeed, the federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project are designed to facilitate transfers of huge quantities of water. Id. Institutional structures like the Environmental Water Account also emphasize trading large quantities of water in the Delta and Central Valley. See Barton H. Thompson, Jr., Uncertainty and Markets in Water Resources, 36 McGeorge L. Rev. 117, 136 (2005) (explaining the theory behind the EWA). However, a drastically different scale exists. On that scale, a transfer of ten cfs or less can make the crucial difference in instream flow *1226 for fishery or other natural resource needs. This scale is unfortunately too often overlooked to the detriment of instream flow opportunities and the natural resources reliant on such flow. Section 1707 is a perfectly placed legal tool to correct this oversight.
California’s regional communities and water stakeholders are faced with the challenge of fixing the state’s water rights permitting system. This challenge is playing out north of San Francisco where there are approximately six hundred or more pending applications for new appropriative water rights and surface diversions, mostly in the Russian River basin, in Sonoma and Mendocino counties. Water Rights Petition, (State Water Resources Control Bd. Oct. 27, 2004), available at http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/coastal_ streams/docs/tupetition/tupetitiononly102704.pdf. Many of these applications have been pending ten or more years. Assemb. B. 2121, 2003-2004 Reg. Sess., 2004 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 943 (Cal. 2004) (codified at Cal. Water Code §§ 1259.2, 1259.4 (West 2006)).
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wat&group=01001-02000&file=1250-1259.4>
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wat&group=00001-01000&file=174-188.5>
Statutory and Rule Changes to Water Court Practices:
<http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/File/Court_Probation/Water_Courts/Statutory_and_Rule_Changes_to_Water_Court_Practice_Witwer_and_Jones_June_2009.pdf>
A public hearing will be held on January 21, 2010 regarding proposed changes to the minimum flow regulations that would apply to all rivers. See http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?
Statutes, Title 25:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/title25.htm
Title 15: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/bureau/Publications/Arkansas%20Code/Title%2015.pdf
<http://delcode.delaware.gov/title7/c060/sc02/index.shtml#6003>
The Florida Act vests the Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”) with responsibility for planning and managing the state’s waters. [FN347] The Department also is to serve as a repository for all
The Florida Act has several unique features when compared to other regulated riparian statutes. Florida, alone among regulated riparian states, chose to divide the power and responsibility for administering its regulated riparian statute among five regional water management districts. [FN351] Florida’s legislature decided that these districts correspond to the diverse matches across the state between need and availability of water. [FN352] The districts are vested with a great deal of the planning responsibility. [FN353] The districts set the protected minimum flows and levels for the state’s water resources. [FN354] The Department’s role is aptly described as a “general supervisory authority.” [FN355]
The legislature left the authority to each of the several water management districts to determine whether to implement the permit requirement of the Florida Act and whether to extend this requirement to groundwater as well as surface water. [FN356] So diverse are the districts that the two northernmost districts did not implement the permit system until the 1990s, leaving water users in those districts to continue under the common law of riparian rights for twenty years after the adoption of Florida’s regulated riparian system. [FN357] Even after all of the districts were ready to implement the regulated riparian system, wide variations existed in how they implemented it. *61 Thus, one empirical study of the Florida permit system found that at least one water district, in order to avoid conflict, routinely granted irrigators’ requests for more water than they actually needed. [FN358]
Florida’s regulated riparian statute defines the term “reasonable-beneficial use” as “the use of water in such quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient utilization for a purpose and in a manner which is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest.” [FN363] Here, “beneficial” appears to mean two things–economic and efficient, which perhaps mean respectively non-wasteful and economically efficient. “Non-wasteful” simply means not using more water than is necessary for the planned use, while “economically efficient” can mean putting water to its most profitable use, taking all costs into account. [FN364] The Florida legislature provided virtually no guidelines to control the administering agency’s discretion in determining what is a reasonable use, except for some exceptionally vague declarations of policy. [FN365] Even assuming that it is objectively clear which uses qualify as beneficial (an assumption that often will not hold), administering agencies still have considerable discretion to determine whether the manner and purpose of the use are “reasonable” and “consistent with the public interest.” [FN366]
The Florida Act, again alone among the regulated riparian statutes that have been enacted over the past forty-five years, addresses explicitly the question of civil liability in favor of a permittee injured by another permittee’s violation of the terms or conditions of a permit. [FN374] The Florida Act creates a problem for a permittee who seeks relief under this provision, however. The right to sue for damages accrues only to “abutting consumptive use permit holders,” [FN375] as if only abutting permittees could possibly injure one another. Even they cannot sue until they have first applied for and been denied relief by the water management district. [FN376]
The Florida Act makes no express provision for voluntary transfers. A provision for the voluntary modification of permits seems to address only a modification that does not change the purpose of the use or the identity of *63 the user. [FN377] Once water is fully allocated, a new water user apparently can obtain water only by filing a competing application for a permit when an existing permittee applies for renewal of a permit. While in principle, as between two qualified applicants, the permit should go to the one that best serves the public interest, [FN378] the Florida Act provides a preference for renewal applications over initial applications–if competing applications “qualify equally” for the permit, an existing permit should be renewed. [FN379] Of course, the water
management district can easily determine that the applications do not qualify equally if the district is so inclined.
Finally, unlike Alabama and Arkansas, Florida has a large native American population with claims to water rights derived from federal law rather than Florida law. [FN388] Florida and the Seminole Tribe have reached a settlement by a compact between the tribe and the state that could serve as a model for such issues in other regulated riparian states. [FN389] Florida recognized a Seminole’s right to a percentage of the water available from specified sources (usually fifteen percent), and the Seminoles agreed to abide by most non-procedural aspects of Florida’s regulated riparian statute. The tribe has the exclusive right to regulate Indian water usage, but must provide annual notice of the patterns of use to state authorities. This approach would appear to be based on riparian principles rather than on appropriation principles. In fact, so alien is the approach of this eastern Indian water settlement that a purportedly comprehensive study of Indian water settlements did not even mention the Seminole agreement. [FN390] This agreement might presage an attempt to market Indian water rights–a development finding increasing support in western states. [FN391]
(a) Recreation in and on the water;
(b) Fish and wildlife habitats and the passage of fish;
(c) Estuarine resources;
(d) Transfer of detrital material;
(e) Maintenance of freshwater storage and supply;
(f) Aesthetic and scenic attributes;
(g) Filtration and absorption of nutrients and other pollutants;
(h) Sediment loads;
(i) Water quality; and
(j) Navigation.” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 62-40.473 (2008).
<http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0373/SEC0421.HTM&Title=-%3E2009-%3ECh0373-%3ESection%200421#0373.0421>
*68 Over the past forty years, the Georgia General Assembly has enacted a broad range of statutes that regulate various aspects of water use in the state. Two statutes directly address the allocation of water to particular uses through the requirement of permits for the use of water–The Ground-water Use Act of 1972 (“Ground Water Act”) [FN421] and a 1977 amendment to the Georgia Water Quality Protection Act of 1964 (“Protection Act”). [FN422] These statutes impose similar permit systems on water users; the first applies to users of groundwater and the second to users of surface water. Both statutes are premised on the idea that the general welfare and public interest require that the water resources of the state be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent to which they are capable subject to reasonable regulation in order to conserve the waters and to provide and maintain conditions which are conducive to the development and use of water resources. [FN423]
… The Protection Act defines the term “surface waters” as any body of water on the surface that lies within or along the boundary of the state, whether natural or artificial, although springs are included only if they produce more than 100,000 gallons per day. [FN425] The Environmental Protection Division (“Division”) of the Department of Natural Resources has the sort of extensive planning responsibilities that are customary under regulated riparian statutes. [FN426] To support these
The Director may also seek an injunction without satisfying the usual requirement of showing the lack of an adequate remedy at law. [FN440] … For surface water, civil penalties for wrongful diversion are included in the civil penalty provisions for pollution, and thus the limits are much larger–up to $50,000 per day and up to $100,000 per day if a separate violation occurs within one year of the original violation. [FN442] … Again, violations regarding surface water permits are potentially subject to harsher penalties because such violations are felonies. [FN444]
For surface water, the Division can revoke a permit because of non-use of the water, the use of which is authorized by permit, for two consecutive years without proper excuse. [FN447] This provision,
however, is more likely to prompt a permit holder to continue to waste water rather than to risk forfeiture. …
Georgia did initiate an experiment in economic incentives for water allocation management in the year 2000. [FN448] The statute authorizes the use of *71 up to $4.5 billion of Georgia’s share of the tobacco settlement to pay farmers in the Flint River basin to stop well irrigation during drought years to prevent the drying of the river. The initiative for such payments lies with the farmers, not the state. There have been reports of considerable irregularities–payments denied to eligible farmers and made to ineligible farmers. [FN449]
Georgia authorizes emergency orders to deal with water shortages. The standards that justify the issuance of emergencies are different in the two statutes. … For surface water, the Director can issue such an order when the water shortage is such “as to place in jeopardy the health or safety of the citizens of such area or to threaten serious harm to the water resources of the area.” [FN451] The Director cannot issue such an order for surface water except after a certified mailing to give notice to affected permit holders and a wait of five days after the mailing to allow a contest of the order. [FN452] … Such an emergency order can restrict any water use permit. [FN454] Farm uses have second priority in case of water emergencies–only behind water for direct human consumption. [FN455]
These complex statutes represent a good beginning towards an adequate regulated riparian system. They establish in law the public nature of water and provide a mechanism for managing water resources consistent with the public trust as well as with promotion of private welfare. Thus far, no one has challenged the constitutionality of the two statutes. …
*72 An even more important failing of the two statutes is their near complete exemption of farm uses from the operation of the permit system if the farm use began before July 1, 1988, and certain procedural steps were taken before July 1, 1991. [FN458] The statutes define “farm uses” as including water used for the growing of any crop (including turf, trees, and ornamental plants), for aquaculture or animal husbandry, and for the processing of perishable agricultural products. [FN459] The Division must issue special permits for such privileged farm uses that are irrevocable, have no term, and are automatically transferred with title to the land on which the water is used. [FN460] The Georgia statutes direct the Division to measure permits for farm uses by the operating capacity of the withdrawal system. [FN461] The permits cannot include a reporting requirement, but they are subject to investigations by the Division and can be suspended if the Division determines that the use authorized by the permit unreasonably interferes with other users. [FN462]
Farm uses remain far and away the largest use of water in Georgia. The virtual exclusion of farm uses from the scope of the two regulated riparian statutes (which go far beyond the exclusions of certain uses in other regulated riparian states [FN463]) prevents the rigorous
implementation of the regulated riparian scheme such as is found in Florida. The common law principles of riparian rights and absolute ownership as developed in the Georgia cases will continue to govern disputes over water allocation involving farm uses–which constitute many or most disputes over water allocation.
[FN464] The Georgia statutes do not even alter the common law prohibitions of use on non-riparian or non-overlying lands. Indeed, the Protection Act (which includes the regulated riparian provisions for surface water) provides that nothing in the Protection Act preempts private rights of action under the *73 common law in general or specifically directed at suppressing a nuisance or at abating pollution. [FN465] …
The statutes also are almost completely silent regarding interstate transfers, while the provisions relating to interbasin transfers are extremely limited. The Director must give a preference to water usage within a water basin over proposed interbasin transfers. [FN466] … There is no provision in either statute for public or local participation in decision-making apart from participating in public hearings when such hearings are required. [FN467]
Statutes, Title 52:
<http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/Default.asp>
i. For direct withdrawals from a stream, the applicant must allow the lesser of 30% of the MAF or the inflow to pass the stream withdrawal point
(thus, if the inflow is less than 30% of the MAF, the permittee cannot withdraw water).
State Water Code §174C:
<http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/cwrm/regulations/Code174C.pdf>
<http://law.justia.com/idaho/codes/70ftoc/70ftoc.html>
Although I do not see a general permit requirement, the following regulation on state areas (such as parks) may be helpful:
“The following criteria will be used to evaluate requests for water withdrawal and failure to meet these criteria will result in rejection: a) Demonstration of Need. The party requesting the use of water from a Department site must provide information which demonstrates that it has exhausted reasonable alternatives to satisfy its water needs. b) Compatibility With Fish Management or Other Site Management Activities. For example: If a lake has a history of use or the need to utilize fishery management chemicals (aquatic herbicides or fish toxicants) these facts must be taken into consideration during the Department’s review of water withdrawal requests. Information on the use of chemicals must be provided to the requestors in the interest of public health and safety. The District Fisheries Biologist will notify the Site Superintendent annually, by January 31, of all use of chemicals on waters of a site under his control. This notification will include the type of chemical, the date a chemical was applied, the purpose of the application and how many pounds/gallons were applied. c) Compatibility With Migratory Bird Management Activities. For example: If a wetland has a history of being dewatered on a seasonal basis for the purpose of managing migratory birds, these factors must be taken into consideration during the Department’s review of water withdrawal requests. d) Overwintering and Summer Survival of Aquatic Life. In any water withdrawal situation, sufficient water depth must remain to allow overwintering and summer survival of the water area’s aquatic life. Winter-kill risk must be minimized in case refilling prior to winter does not occur following withdrawal, and thermal refuges must be maintained throughout the summer. e) Consideration of Federal Requirements. In all cases where federal funding was utilized in acquiring or developing a site/lake, the associated federal requirements must be considered in the review of water withdrawal requests and inherent obligations must be honored. f) Physical Attributes of the Lake and Watershed. The morphological configuration of the lake in question should be analyzed to determine the amount of water which may be withdrawn. Factors such as the lake’s maximum depth, average depth, ratio of littoral zone to total lake acreage, watershed to lake ratio, inflow/outflow hydrograph of the impoundment for water recharging, spawning requirements and the location of boat ramps and dockage all must be considered. g) Presence of Endangered or Threatened Species. Water withdrawal from surface waters providing habitat for endangered or threatened species will require review by the Endangered Species Program Manager. h) Proximity of a Withdrawal Request to or in a Designated Illinois Nature Preserve. A request of this nature will require coordination with, and concurrence by, the Illinois Nature Preserve Commission. Proximity of a withdrawal request to or in a natural area will require review to ensure there will be no negative impact on the natural area. i) Withdrawal Method Impact. The method of water removal will be considered as a significant factor in the consideration of requests to withdraw water. Under certain
circumstances, the method of water withdrawal could be more damaging to the resource and to Department programs than the loss of water itself.” 17 Ill. Adm. Code § 120.20
<http://dnr.state.il.us/legal/adopted/120.pdf>
<http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title14/ar25/ch7.html>
<http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga>
The monthly minimum desirable flow (in cfs) has been established for numerous specific rivers. See § 82a-703c
§ 82a-703:
<http://www.ksda.gov/includes/document_center/appropriation/DWR_forms/1_100_17.pdf>
“The chief engineer may require an applicant … to adopt and implement conservation plans and practices … pursuant to a finding that such plans and practices will assure public benefit and promote public interest.” § 82a-733(a)
“any holder of a water right … who is willing to voluntarily return all or a part of the water right to the state shall be eligible for a grant not to exceed 80% of the total cost of the purchase price for such water right.” § 2-1915(c)
To look up statutes § 82a-707(d), § 82a-711(b), § 82a-733(a), § 2-1915(c):
<http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteInfo.do>
<http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/titles.htm>
Title 30, 56:
<http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?folder=75>
<http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/06/chaps06.htm>
Granting or denying the permit: “Before acting on any permit application, the Department shall weigh all respective public advantages and disadvantages and make all appropriate investigations. If the Department believes from the evidence before the Department and based upon State water resources policy declared in this subtitle that the applicant’s plans provide greatest feasible utilization of the waters of the State, adequately preserve public safety, and promote the general public welfare, the Department shall grant the permit … If the Department believes from the evidence before the Department that the proposed appropriation or use of State waters or proposed construction is inadequate, wasteful, dangerous, impracticable or detrimental to the best public interest, the Department may reject the application or suggest modifications to the proposed plans to protect the public welfare and safety.” § 5-507(a)
Conservation: “When applying for a new or expanded water appropriation permit or State financial assistance, public water systems shall include a description of best management practices currently in use, or to be implemented, for improving water conservation and the efficiency with which water is used, treated, stored, and transmitted.” § 5-5B-04(a)
<http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/21g-7.htm>
<http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28fa4ejh45coyxa345nvqbaknu%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-324-31112>
<https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=103G.271&year=2007>
<https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=103G.285&year=2009>
§51-3-5:
<http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/51/003/0005.htm>
Section 256.405:
<http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C200-299/2560000405.HTM>
<http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/MCA/85/2/85-2-436.htm>
<http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=46-204>
<http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=46-231>
<http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=46-2,108>
<http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=46-2,110>
<http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=46-2,115>
<http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=46-2,116>
<http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-533.html#NRS533Sec030>
NH Statutes Title 50:
<http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-L.htm>
NH Instream Flow Protection Pilot Program:
<http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/rivers/instream/>
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/njsa_58_1a_1.pdf
NM Chapter 72 §5:
<http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0>
<http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$ENV15-1501$$@TXENV015-1501+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=49857496+&TARGET=VIEW>
<http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$ENV15-1503$$@TXENV015-1503+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=49857496+&TARGET=VIEW>
North Carolina does not require a permit for surface water withdrawals, so there is not a statewide statutory or regulatory minimum flow requirement. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.22H (requiring registration only). <http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_143/gs_143-215.22h.html>
However, North Carolina’s minimum flow requirements for dammed waters are noteworthy. First, dammed rivers are classified as poor, moderate, good, or special case. A “poor” stream has poor fish assemblage and is poor in at least two of the following areas: substrate, cover, or macro-invertebrate organisms. 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02K.0501 (2008). Surprisingly, “poor” rivers are given the least amount of protection either because they are too far gone to renew or because they do not offer strong resources to the state. A “moderate” stream has intermediate physical conditions and biota (i.e. is between poor and good). Id. A “good” stream has good fish assemblage and is good in at least two of the following areas: substrate, cover, or macro-invertebrate organisms. Id. Specific definitions are provided in the regulation for the above terms (good cover, poor fish assemblage, etc.). A “special case” stream is an Outstanding Resource Water, is home to a threatened or endangered species, is home to wild trout, or has other exceptional qualities/resources. Id. “Special case” rivers are given the most protection and require site-specific studies. Next, the minimum flow is calculated based
on the size, classification, and location (piedmont, mountain, or coastal) of the river. Minimum flow requirements are determined using the 7Q10 flow, percentage of MAF, regression technique based on wetted perimeter studies, and/or site-specific studies. North Carolina’s river classifications and varied techniques insure a greater amount of protection to rivers that need it without dramatically increasing costs.
<http://ncrules.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20environment%20and%20natural%20resources/chapter%2002%20-%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20k/15a%20ncac%2002k%20.0503.html>
<http://ncrules.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20environment%20and%20natural%20resources/chapter%2002%20-%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20k/15a%20ncac%2002k%20.0502.html>
Approving the permit application: “The state engineer shall issue a permit if the state engineer finds all of the following: (1) The rights of a prior appropriator will not be unduly affected; (2) The proposed means of diversion or construction are adequate;
(3) The proposed use of water is beneficial; (4) The proposed appropriation is in the public interest. In determining the public interest, the state engineer shall consider all of the following: (a) The benefit to the applicant resulting from the proposed appropriation; (b) The effect of the economic activity resulting from the proposed appropriation; (c) The effect on fish and game resources and public recreational opportunities; (d) The effect of loss of alternate uses of water that might be made within a reasonable time if not precluded or hindered by the proposed appropriation; (e) Harm to other persons resulting from the proposed appropriation; (f) The intent and ability of the applicant to complete the appropriation.” § 61-04-06
Chapter 61-04: Appropriation of Water:
<http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t61c04.pdf>
<http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/15>
<http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/61>
<http://www.oar.state.ok.us/oar/codedoc02.nsf/frmMain?OpenFrameSet&Frame=Main&Src=_75tnm2shfcdnm8pb4dthj0chedppmcbq8dtmmak31ctijujrgcln50ob7ckj42tbkdt374obdcli00_>
<https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/537.130>
The withdrawal must be in accord with the public interest. Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 537.150, 537.153
<https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/537.150>
<https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/537.153>
§537.160: Approval for Beneficial Use:
<https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/537.160>
§537.336: State Agencies Authorized to Request Instream Water Rights
<https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/537.336>
<http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/32/32.HTM>
<http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE46/INDEX.HTM>
“Any application for appropriation of water, pursuant to this chapter, in excess of ten thousand acre feet annually shall be presented by the water management board to the Legislature for approval prior to the board’s acting upon the application.” § 46-5-20.1
<http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=46-1&Type=Statute>
<http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=tncode>
A riparian rights system for groundwater is guided by the “rule of capture” allowing a landowner to draw as much groundwater as desired. There are two exceptions to the unlimited withdrawal right. First, a landowner is not permitted to withdraw water in a willfully wasteful manner that injures a neighbor when there is also a malicious intent to injure that neighbor. [FN17] The second exception is that a landowner is not permitted to withdraw in a manner that negligently causes subsidence to *386 a neighbor’s property. [FN18] In effect, the rule of capture does not do much to discourage wastefulness. In adopting this user-friendly groundwater doctrine, the Texas Supreme Court stated in 1904 in Houston and Texas Central Railway Co. v East that underground waters “are so secret, occult, and concealed that an attempt to administer any set of legal rules in respect to them would be involved in hopeless uncertainty, and would be, therefore, practically impossible.” [FN19]
Unlike the riparian rights system for groundwater, the prior appropriation system for surface water is based on statute, not common law. Under the Texas Water Code, all surface water belongs to the state in trust for the people of Texas. [FN20] The Texas legislature initiated the prior appropriation system via two acts in 1889 [FN21] and 1895, [FN22] after which the right to draw Texas surface water was no longer inherent to landownership, [FN23] but rather dependent on giving notice to the county clerk. [FN24] Water was not allocated so much as staked out by the water consumer. In 1913 the Texas legislature enacted rules that dictated that rather than filing a form, a prospective user must submit an application to seek approval from the state government to use its water. [FN25] The permitting system has evolved, but essentially remains the same. In Texas, to collect groundwater, you need land, a shovel, and a bucket; to collect surface water, you need a bucket and a permit. …
*388 Texas water law lacks an adequate mechanism to protect environmental flows in large part because the Texas legislature historically did not foresee battles over insufficient water resources. Despite Texas’ recurrent droughts, until recently, Texas had no emergency plan to manage dwindling water supplies during dry years. [FN32] Nor did state law ensure that at least some water remained in rivers and flowing to bays. [FN33]
Under H.B. 3, committees and science teams from each basin would recommend a system for environmental flow protection. A single state-wide Advisory Group would make key appointments, keep the Texas legislature abreast of committee and team activity, [FN85] and issue its own recommendations to the final arbiter, TCEQ. The composition of the Advisory Group would be critical–a lopsided commission of either environmentalists or industry and municipal representatives could tilt policy heavily enough in one’s favor at the expense of the other. The political maneuvering has already begun. [FN86]
1 please note that House Bill 3 did become law in 2007; see, e.g., the date of enactment for Tex. Water Code Ann. § 11.02362.
Under H.B. 3, local basin and bay expert scientific teams (Basin Science Teams) would work together with an overarching statewide team of scientific experts (Texas Science Advisory Committee). [FN87] These Basin Science Teams would develop and submit to TCEQ environmental flow *398 regime recommendations (EF Regime Recommendations). [FN88] Each basin would also have a committee of basin and bay stakeholders (Basin Stakeholder Committee) which would comment and make recommendations to TCEQ with regard to the EF Regime Recommendations. [FN89] TCEQ would then adopt a regime for each river basin and bay system. [FN90]
In H.B. 3′s environmental flow protection system, power would flow top down. That is, state politicians would have appointment power of key positions, along with removability power for some. [FN91] Management would rest primarily with Texas’ Environmental Flows Advisory Group (Advisory Group), [FN92] which would in turn be appointed by three Texas politicians. [FN93] The Advisory Group’s duties would include: (1) determining the geographical boundaries of each basin; [FN94] (2) developing schedules for EF Regime Recommendations; [FN95] (3) appointing the Basin Stakeholder Committee members; [FN96] (4) appointing the Texas Science Advisory Committee (TSAC); [FN97] (5) considering for approval the Basin Stakeholder *399 Committees’ ongoing work plans; [FN98] (6) receiving reports from TCEQ, TPWD, and TWDB regarding flow recommendations and implementation of flow plans; [FN99] (7) reporting activities to the Governor, lieutenant Governor, and speaker of the house; [FN100] and (8) submitting comments to TCEQ during review of EF Regime Recommendations. TCEQ ultimately would adopt and promulgate the regime and standards. [FN101] Thus, the Advisory Group would act as a conduit of information from the Texas political leadership to the policy makers at TCEQ.
The environmental flow protection regime would not be well-insulated from politics. The Advisory Group itself would be composed entirely of political appointees. [FN102] The Advisory Group would have nine members. [FN103] The first three would be appointed by the Governor. [FN104] The Governor’s three appointees would be consistent with section 11.0236(c), which states that one appointee would be from TCEQ, one would be from TWDB, and one would be from the TPWD. The next three would be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, and all three would come from the Texas Senate. [FN105] The final three members would be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and all three would come from the Texas House. [FN106] All appointments would be made by only three politicians, and thus happenstance of political leadership could lead to representation for narrow constituencies, rather than a more politically-neutral process that would represent broader interests.
The Advisory Group members would serve at the pleasure of the person who appointed them. [FN107] While removability would add an element of accountability, the structure also would subject the member to additional direct political influence that could draw them away from their expert impartiality. An appointee whose position is subject to a Governor’s whims would likely find it difficult to muster the courage to *400 act inconsistently with the Governor’s political inclinations, especially since water issues are so politically charged. Effectively, the removability provision elevates political loyalty over evenhanded basin management.
The environmental flow regime, as set forth in H.B. 3, calls for the Basin Stakeholder Committees to submit recommendations to the TCEQ. *401 These recommendations would supplement and respond to the EF Regime Recommendations submitted earlier to TCEQ by the Basin Science Team. As noted above, the Advisory Group would submit to TCEQ comments on the Basin Stakeholder Committee’s recommendations. Approval power with respect to environmental flow standards would rest with TCEQ (which would rely on the Texas Science Advisory Committee for scientific support). Standards would be finalized on a basin by basin level.
The Advisory Group would appoint the TSAC to make recommendations to the Advisory Group concerning flow programs at Texas’ agencies and basin science team activities. [FN113] The TSAC would provide “an objective perspective and diverse technical expertise, including expertise in hydrology, hydraulics, water resources, aquatic and terrestrial biology, geomorphology, geology, water quality, computer modeling, and other technical areas pertinent to the evaluation of environmental flows.”
[FN114] The TSAC would work closely with each basin science team, with TSAC appointing one nonvoting liaison as a member of each Team. The liaison would “facilitate coordination and consistency in environmental flow activities throughout the state.” [FN115] The TSAC would report on Basic Science Teams’ recommendations to the Advisory Group. [FN116]
Coupled with the cross-membership between the Texas agencies, Basin Science Teams, Basin Stakeholder Committees and the Advisory Group, the sunlight provisions assure that Texas water policy would not be created in secret. With much of water law taking place off the ordinary Texan’s radar, such an open policy is welcome in that it would encourage newspapers to report on water issues, and it would allow concerned citizens to participate in the debate. The sunlight provisions would make it harder for any particular stakeholder to be shortchanged in the process.
The SMRF application was a unique attempt to establish a base minimum flow in the Guadalupe River, but its achievement would have
left growing cities high and dry. The absolute nature of such a right would not allow for compromise in times of drought. Nor would such an instream right accommodate future development along the river, development that could, arguably, be managed in such a way that does not compromise environmental flows. It is good governance to preclude blanket instream flow protection of new water rights, but there is a *403 meaningful absence of strong alternative environmental flow protection in H.B. 3′s remaining provisions.
H.B. 3 would remove impediments to transferring and leasing water rights to the Texas Water Trust. This would include fees, [FN127] cost assessments, [FN128] and expenses [FN129] for donations and long-term leases. [FN130] The purpose here would be to encourage transfers to the Trust by reducing costs for the donor. Water in the Trust would be actively protected as *404 environmental flow by giving standing to TPWD to file suit as guardian of the Trust’s water rights.
F. Environmental Set-Aside Set-Aside (Emergency Provisions)
The result of these provisions is that environmental flow standards would be compromised during droughts, and water right permits with environmental flow conditions could have those conditions (environmental safeguards) removed in time of emergency. Setting aside for a moment what would constitute an “emergency” (the beginning and end dates of droughts cannot easily be determined), safeguards that can easily be set aside when they are needed most are not safeguards. Indeed, set-aside provisions that can be easily set-aside are impotent protections. Under H.B. 3, TCEQ would determine when an “emergency” exists. These provisions would facilitate water management during a drought, and thus constitute a tool for city planners. This is a significant attribute of the proposed emergency provisions. However, the benefit would be gained at the cost of instream flow and freshwater inflow protection, and would render ineffective H.B. 3′s environmental safeguards.
<http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/WA/htm/WA.11.htm#11.02362>
Also, the state engineer cannot approve an appropriation or permanent change application without first determining that the proposed appropriation or change will not “unreasonably affect public recreation or the natural stream environment, or…prove detrimental to the public welfare….” [FN205] “Any person interested may file a protest with the
state engineer,”
<http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE73/htm/73_03_000300.htm>
<http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sections.cfm?Title=25&Chapter=003>
Title 62.1-248:
<http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+62.1-248>
<http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=90.22.010>
<http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=90.22&full=true#90.22.030>
<http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm?chap=22&art=1>
Ch. 30; Scroll to 30.18:
<http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0030.pdf>
Title 41-1:
<http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/statutes.aspx?file=titles/Title41/Title41.htm>
Previous: Ecosystems-Based Management Systems