October 24, 2014 National Water Resources Association Daily Report NWRA Annual Conference The Hotel Del Coronado Coronado, California November 12 - 14, 2014 Upcoming NWRA Meetings: NWRA Annual Conference - November 12-14, 2014, Hotel Del Coronado, Coronado, California Registration Now Available! More information on NWRA website HERE. REMINDER The cutoff date of October 31, 2014, for early registration is quickly approaching. Leadership Forum January 13-14, 2015, Monte Carlo, Las Vegas, Nevada Federal Water Issues Conference - April 13-15, 2015, Washington Court Hotel, Washington, DC Upcoming Member Meetings: In This Issue Subheading Subheading Coping In A Drier World: California's Drought Survival Strategy Report says Yakima Basin Integrated Plan falls short on water supply Subheading WATER POLICY: Scientific review board backs underpinnings of jurisdictional proposal Annie Snider, E&E reporter Published: Thursday, October 23, 2014 October 28, Utah Water Users Association and Utah Water Conservation Forum, 21st Annual Utah Water Summit, Utah Valley Convention Center, Provo, UT October 28-30, Montana Water Resources Association & Upper Missouri Water Association - Joint Annual Conference and Educational Seminar, Billings, MT November 6-7, Idaho Water Users Association A scientific review board has backed most of U.S. EPA's conclusions in a key technical report underpinning a controversial proposed water regulation. In a review sent to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy last week, the Science Advisory Board said that the agency's report synthesizing the scientific literature on how different types of streams and wetlands are connected to downstream waters "reflects the pertinent literature and is well grounded in current science." The scientific review process has become a lightning rod in the battle over the Obama administration's proposal to increase the number of streams and creeks that receive automatic Clean Water Act protection following two muddled Supreme Court decisions. EPA has touted that the regulatory proposal is based on sound science and has said that the 331-page scientific report underpins the proposal. But opponents of the rule have blasted the agency for moving forward with the proposed rule before the SAB review of the report was completed. The agencies have twice extended the comment period, with it now slated to close Nov. 14. In its 103-page review, the SAB agreed with the connectivity report's findings that all tributary streams, including those that flow only during certain times of year or after rainfall, have a strong influence on downstream waters, and that all streams and wetlands within a river's floodplain have an important influence. The proposed rule would put both of these types of waters under automatic federal jurisdiction. However, the board disagreed with the report's third finding, namely that there was not enough evidence to generalize about the connectivity of waters like prairie potholes -- waters and wetlands outside the floodplain that don't physically connect to a downstream water. This category of waters, called "geographically isolated wetlands," was thrown into jurisdictional confusion following a 2001 Supreme Court decision. "The SAB disagrees with this overall conclusion," the board wrote. "To the contrary, the SAB finds that the scientific literature provides ample information to support a more definitive statement." Waters and wetlands outside the floodplain fall under the category of "other waters" in the administration's proposed rule, which would require regulators to make case-by-case calls about how important an individual stream or wetland is to larger downstream waters, and thus whether it falls under federal jurisdiction. This type of individual analysis is labor-intensive and subjective, and as a result, environmentalists and sportsmen's groups say, many of the "other waters" simply don't get protected. They have argued that categories of waters, like the Great Plains' prairie potholes and the arid West's playa lakes, should be evaluated as a unit and ruled in or out by category. The agencies asked for comment on whether and how this should be done in their proposed rule. Jan Goldman-Carter, senior manager of wetlands and water resources at the National Wildlife Federation, said the SAB conclusion could open the door to such an approach. "I think it pushes things more in the direction of some kind of provision in the rule that is more protective of at least some non-floodplain wetlands than the case-bycase," she said. The SAB review also urged EPA to bolster its evidence on how a number of similar waters or wetlands in a region together influence downstream waters. 31st Annual Water Law Seminar, Boise, ID November 6, Columbia Basin Development League 50th Annual Meeting, Moses Lake, WA November 23-25, Nebraska Water Resources Association & Nebraska State Irrigation Association - Joint Convention, Kearney, NE December 2-5, Association of California Water Agencies, Fall Conference & Exhibition San Diego, CA December 3-5, North Dakota Water Convention and Irrigation Workshop, Bismarck, ND December 3-5, Washington State Water Resources Association Annual Conference, Spokane, WA January 6-8, The 40th Annual Meeting of the Groundwater Management District Association, Scottsdale, AZ Stay Connected Join Our Mailing List Forward to a Friend This touches on a hot button within the regulatory debate. The proposed rule would have regulators consider not just the value of a single stream or wetland, but the value of that stream in combination with other nearby features -- a concept called "aggregation." Supporters say that this captures important ecological functions, but opponents say it's a way of making insignificant waters seem more important. "The SAB recommends that the Report more explicitly address the scientific literature on cumulative and aggregate effects of streams, groundwater systems, and wetlands on downstream waters," the report states. The new SAB review follows a previous endorsement from the board of the agency's overall water rule. In a letter sent to McCarthy late last month, the board said "the available science provides an adequate scientific basis for the key components of the proposed rule" (Greenwire, Sept. 30). Supporters of the rule have said these two scientific endorsements should pave the way toward finalization of the proposed rule. But opponents of the rule argue that the conclusions mean little to the regulatory process. "The SAB review process has been flawed from the beginning because EPA's limited charge questions for the SAB did not give the SAB panel the opportunity to evaluate the key issue: whether EPA's connectivity report adequately addresses the significance of the connections it identifies," Deidre Duncan, an attorney who leads the industry coalition opposing the rule, said after the board's September letter. That coalition, the Waters Advocacy Coalition, has argued that the rulemaking process itself has become muddled and confusing, with a number of new documents coming out during the waning days of the public comment period. "The [Administrative Procedure Act] does not allow the Agencies to keep altering the regulatory landscape throughout the rulemaking process," the group wrote in a recent letter to the administration. "Indeed, the public cannot be expected to provide meaningful comment on a moving target." Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC - www.eenews.net - 202-628-6500 Back to TOP ENDANGERED SPECIES: Enviros tell Jewell that saving sage grouse means killing grazing permits Scott Streater, E&E reporter Published: Thursday, October 23, 2014 An environmental group is challenging Interior Secretary Sally Jewell not to renew hundreds of expiring federal grazing permits within greater sage grouse habitat, arguing that doing so will undermine the Obama administration's massive effort to incorporate grouse conservation measures into land-use documents across the West. At issue are 453 federal grazing allotment permits covering hundreds of thousands of acres and more than 120,000 head of cattle that are set to expire next year. The permits are also within so-called Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service across the sage grouse's 11-state Western range. The PACs are designed to help the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and state wildlife officials prioritize areas for the protection, conservation and enhancement of grouse habitat. An attorney representing the Western Watersheds Project yesterday sent a letter to Jewell urging BLM not to renew the grazing permits without first conducting an environmental review analyzing the impact of the allotments on the grouse habitat. BLM is required under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health to conduct these reviews, according to the four-page letter submitted for the Western Watersheds Project by Todd Tucci, a senior attorney with Advocates for the West in Boise, Idaho. "It is long past time for BLM to ensure that livestock grazing within the most important habitat for the Greater sagegrouse is compatible with protecting and enhancing sage-grouse populations and habitat, including adopting both seasonal and use restrictions," Tucci wrote. But BLM, according to the letter, has never undertaken "analysis and review of the sage-grouse habitat conditions" on at least 175 of the permitted allotments. And it has failed to analyze the rest of the grazing allotments in question for at least a decade. BLM has a long backlog of environmental reviews on grazing permits, and Congress has approved "grazing riders" in appropriations bills that BLM says exempt the agency from FLPMA and National Environmental Policy Act reviews on the grazing permits. Western Watersheds Project has challenged in federal court BLM's renewal of grazing allotments within sage grouse habitat without conducting any environmental analysis of the impact of this livestock and cattle grazing on the grouse and its habitat. U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill in Idaho last month issued an order siding with the environmental group. Winmill, among other things, ruled the congressional grazing rider does not exempt BLM from the requirements of FLPMA when renewing the grazing permits. That means, Tucci said, the grazing permits must comply with agency policies regarding greater sage grouse conservation, as well as other mandates included in resource management plans (RMPs) that govern how the federal lands are managed. BLM is currently working to amend 98 RMPs and Forest Service land-use plans covering millions of acres to incorporate sage grouse protection measures. Federal, state and local leaders across the West are trying to protect the bird in hopes that it prevents Fish and Wildlife from listing it for protection under the Endangered Species Act. But none of what BLM and Western state leaders are doing to save the grouse will matter if the hundreds of grazing permits inside grouse PACs are renewed without environmental reviews first being conducted, Tucci said. "If they continue to argue that FLPMA does not apply to grazing [permit renewals], then all this effort to amend the RMPs that they're doing, none of this will matter," he said. "It'll be a foregone conclusion that the grouse needs to be protected under ESA." Emily Beyer, an Interior spokeswoman, said the agency cannot comment on the letter due to the Western Watersheds Project lawsuit and the ongoing litigation. The letter comes just about a week after Jewell visited ranchers in Wyoming and praised them for signing agreements to protect prime sage grouse habitat covering nearly 40,000 acres of private ranchlands (E&ENews PM, Oct. 15). But if BLM allows grazing on federal lands to harm prime grouse habitat, the efforts of ranchers on private lands won't be as effective, Tucci said. He wrote in his letter to Jewell that "BLM must take immediate action to prioritize completing full environmental review on all grazing rider permits issued within sage-grouse Priority Areas for Conservation." BLM needs to complete these reviews, and any resulting modifications in the grazing permits, "within two to three years," he wrote. He also wrote this needs to be done prior to reauthorizing any of the grazing permits to "ensure that grazing is compatible with sage-grouse conservation." "They are going to hopefully change course now," he said in an interview. "If they don't, I feel confident I can walk into any federal courtroom and have it stopped." Reprinted from E&E News PM with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC - www.eenews.net - 202-628-6500 Back to TOP Mega-Water Utilities Join to Fund Colorado River Conservation Projects By: JIM TROTTER | October 23, 2014 Denver Water will join with Central Arizona Project, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Southern Nevada Water Authority and Reclamation to put forward some $11 million to fund new Colorado River water conservation projects. The proposals being solicited are intended to demonstrate the viability of cooperative, voluntary efforts to reduce demand for Colorado River water, which seven states and Mexico share. The Southwest is the nation's hottest and driest region, where population growth and warming pose continuing threats to water supplies. Ongoing drought has squeezed the Colorado since 2000, shrinking water levels in major reservoirs. In July, reservoir levels in Lake Mead near Las Vegas dipped to the lowest level since iconic Hoover Dam began filling in the 1930s. As of Oct. 22, Mead's surface elevation was at 1,082 feet, seven feet above the 1,075 feet benchmark at which the U.S. secretary of interior could declare a shortage on the river. Mead has dropped more than 125 feet since 2000, when it was 91 percent full at 1,210 feet. Read entire article HERE. Back to TOP Coping In A Drier World: California's Drought Survival Strategy By KIRK SIEGLER Originally published on Wed October 22, 2014 7:44 pm The San Luis Reservoir in central California is the largest "off-channel" reservoir in the U.S. It is currently at less than 30 percent of its normal capacity. Kirk Siegler NPR The past few years have been California's driest on record. Forecasters predict that punishing droughts like the current one could become the new norm. The state uses water rationing and a 90-year-old water distribution system to cope until the rains come. The system is a huge network of dams, canals and pipes that move water from the places it rains and snows to places it typically doesn't, like farms and cities. "The system that we have was designed back in the 1930s through 1950s to meet population and land use needs of the time," says Doug Parker, director of the California Institute for Water Resources in Oakland. Read entire article HERE. Back to TOP Report says Yakima Basin Integrated Plan falls short on water supply POSTED ON OCTOBER 23 , 2014 The Wymer canyon, which includes Lmuma Creek, is the site of a water storage reservoir in the proposed Yakima Basin Integrated Plan. However, a new study now says the plan doesn't provide for an adequate amount of water storage. (GORDON KING/Yakima Herald-Republic) Phone: 509-577-7674 By Kate Prengaman / Yakima Herald-Republic [email protected] The Yakima Basin Integrated Plan is designed to improve the region's water supply security in the face of future droughts, but a new outside review says that the p lan might not provide enough water storage. "The proposed water storage projects, under the future use and climate change scenarios, collectively will not provide enough water volume and predictable water supply for both a sustainable ecosystem and agricultural industry in the Yakima Basin," concludes the report by environmental consulting firm Normandeau Associates, based in New Hampshire. Normandeau's Curt Thalken presented the results of the study to the plan's work group at its quarterly meeting on Wednesday, but few members expressed concern about the findings, which included critiques of the plan's economic analysis of drought impacts and the way it accounted for the water needs of fish and the impacts of climate change. Read entire article HERE. Back to TOP Daily news items and links to information are created by other public and private organizations. The National Water Resources Association (NWRA) does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this information. The inclusion of news items and links, and any views or opinions expressed therein, is not intended to indicate endorsement or importance by the NWRA. National Water Resources Association 4 E Street SE Washington, DC 20003 www.nwra.org 202-698-0693
© Copyright 2024