Call Our Firm:   605.385.0330

Commercial Transactions & Litigation, Environmental Law, Natural Resources Law, & Energy Law

Archive for the ‘New York & South Dakota Law’ Category

Waste Water Injection Well

Posted on: March 8th, 2014
by David Ganje

Will Texas Send Another Trend To The Bakken?

 

             Texas often leads the way in American oil and gas law.  Currently, the Texas Supreme Court is wrestling with a wastewater injection well case that may send precedential shockwaves across the nation. North Dakota (ND) maintains approximately 470 disposal wells.  Oral argument on the Texas case was held in January. This is the second time the Texas Supreme Court has been asked to review the same case.  FPL Farming Ltd. v. Envtl. Processing Sys., L.C. involves a landowner bringing a trespass claim concerning a wastewater injection well used to dispose of non oil and gas waste.  The landowner alleges the well is causing the migration of the injected wastewater into the landowner’s property some 8,000 feet below the surface. The landowner also claims that migrating wastewater is damaging the quality of the aquifer. The wastewater well was dug about 400 feet from the landowner’s property. 

 

     Will this second bite at the Texas apple by the Texas Supreme Court affect the Bakken?  I have some comments about such a possible outcome:  1.While not argued actively in the Texas court appeal briefs, the court record in that case shows a settlement payment made to, as well as a signed pre-well settlement agreement by, the landowner. A pre-well settlement was reached based on an objection filed by the landowner at the prior well permit application hearing.  2. ND has an established set of oil and gas regulations and water law that actively manages groundwater. ND law asserts public ownership of much of ND’s water resources including aquifers. By contrast Texas grants more private rights of ownership to subsurface water.  3. ND follows the heaven to hell ownership principal of land in which everything above and everything below the surface is owned by the surface owner. This rule of law is however not absolute. ND has addressed  the concept of subsurface trespass in a hydrofracking context in the Farrar case.  In that case the ND Court determined that state public policy in favor of the development of natural resources trumped a claim for trespass filed by a nonconsenting mineral rights holder.  4. The alleged harm to the landowner’s aquifer in the Texas case is based upon conjectural extrapolations, and is not in the nature of ‘hard evidence’ as we say on the street. At oral argument one of the judges stated, “I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the issue of how much would be owed and when it would be owed.”

     While ND courts have in the past looked at Texas oil and gas precedent, my comments suggest that ND may not be as eager to follow any new precedent coming out of the FPL case.

 

 

David Ganje of Ganje Law Offices practices natural resources, environmental and commercial law in North Dakota and South Dakota. Web:  lexenergy.net

David Ganje to Speak at Annual Meeting of American Association of Professional Landmen

Posted on: February 28th, 2014
by David Ganje

 

Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 1

AAPL’s 60th Annual Meeting
Education Events

Wednesday June 25th

Wednesday Seminars
(Separate registration required for Seminar Events)

Seminar 1 – 8:15 – 11:30 am
Ethics
Gary Lepine with Concord Professional Development Inc.

Seminar Luncheon -11:45 am – 1: 15 pm
Global Impact of NA Unconventional Plays
Chris Theal with Kottenay Capital Management Corp.

Seminar 2 – 1:15 – 4:45 pm
LNG 101: A detailed look at the North American and Global LNG Landscape
Tom Valentine with Norton Rose Fulbright

 

 

AAPL’s 60th Annual Meeting
Education Events

 

Wednesday June 25th

Wednesday Seminars
(Separate registration required for Seminar Events)

Seminar 1 – 8:15 – 11:30 am
Ethics
Gary Lepine with Concord Professional Development Inc.

Seminar Luncheon -11:45 am – 1: 15 pm
Global Impact of NA Unconventional Plays
Chris Theal with Kottenay Capital Management Corp.

Seminar 2 – 1:15 – 4:45 pm
LNG 101: A detailed look at the North American and Global LNG Landscape
Tom Valentine with Norton Rose Fulbright

Thursday June 26th

Education Sessions
1:00 – 5:00 pm

 

1) Klotzman Complaint with David Gross

 

2) Surface Issues with Celia Flowers

 

3) Design for Horizontal Wells with Brian Teller

 

4) Dormant/Abandoned Mineral Rights with David Ganje – Attorney at law

Contracts for Deed in the Sale of Real Property & Mineral Interests

Posted on: February 27th, 2014
by David Ganje

USE OF INSTALLMENT SALE CONTRACTS KNOWN AS CONTRACTS FOR DEED IN THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND MINERAL INTERESTS

 

Real property is frequently transferred via contracts which allow for the payment of the purchase price to be executed in a series of installments. These types of contracts are called installment contracts or contracts for deed. Often, the vendor maintains legal title until the entirety of the purchase price has been satisfied, although it need not be created in this manner. Installment contracts usually contain forfeiture clauses that enable the vendor to terminate the contract, recover the property, and retain all installments paid when the purchaser defaults.  This process may be used for real property and mineral interests.

Anatomy of an Installment Land Contract

a.       Prepayment clause – permits vendee to make payments on the principal in advance of their due date (although SD 43-26-9 now appears to permit pre-payment unless there express language stating otherwise)

b.      Shift to mortgage and deed – requires vendor to convey legal title and vendee to execute mortgage after a certain percentage of the price is paid

c.       Furnishing of Abstract – requires vendor to furnish an abstract showing marketable title at some definite date early in the life of the contract

d.      Payments tied to farm income – recognizes the fluctuation of farm income, out of which the vendee might meet his contract payments; installments may be a percentage of crops and livestock sales

e.       Grace Period – grace period to pay installments after the due date without a breach of contract

f.       Boiler plate provisions of an installment contract

a.       “Time is of the essence of this contract”’ – prevents relief against a default by making time of the essence

b.      “Prompt payment of all installments on due dates is a condition precedent of the duty of the vendor to convey title”

c.       Acceleration clause – the basis of the installment vendor’s action for specific performance and strict foreclosure when the vendor is demanding the entire unpaid purchase price be paid or else vendee’s rights be foreclosed

d.      Forfeiture or liquidated damages clause

e.       In the event of default, “vendor shall have right to re-enter and take possession of the premises without hindrance or delay”

South Dakota Law and Installment Land Contracts

1.      Assignment of Installment Contract

Unless there is specific language in the land installment contract restricting or not permitting the assignment of the contract interest, either party may assign his or her interest to a third party.

2.      Forfeiture and Liquidated Damages Provisions

Whether a forfeiture provision in a contract is an enforceable liquidated damage provision or an unenforceable penalty – pursuant to SDCL 53-9-5 – is a question of law to be determined “based on consideration of the document as a whole, the situation of the parties, the subject matter of the contract, the circumstances surrounding the execution, and other factors.” Prentice v. Classen, 355 N.W.2d 352-55 (S.D. 1984).

Forfeiture provisions will be upheld if: (1) at the time the contract was made, the damages in the event of breach were incapable or very difficult of accurate estimation, (2) there was a reasonable endeavor by the parties to fix compensation, and (3) the amount stipulated bears a reasonable relation to probable damages and is not disproportionate to any damages reasonably to be anticipated. Id.

A court may decline to enforce a forfeiture clause if the defaulting vendee established by clear and convincing evidence that a substantial disparity exists between the payments made on the contract, together with the improvements made to the property, and the loss of rents and other detriment suffered by the vendors due to the loss of use and possession of the property. Id.

3.      Prepayment Privilege is Implied in Real Estate Contracts

Pursuant to SDCL 43-26-9, any contract made in this state for the purchase and sale of realty shall be interpreted as including an agreement that the vendee shall have the right to tender, and the vendor shall have the duty to accept, prepayment of the balance of the contract price with accrued interest at any time without penalty to the vendee, unless the contract expressly provides otherwise.

General Practice Tips [Powell on Real Property]

1.      Recording the contract

Because installment contract purchasers are typically poorly advised, they often fail to record their purchase contracts. They act unwisely in failing to do so, for the lack of recordation can expose a purchaser to unnecessary risks. Under state recording acts, an installment purchaser is unprotected against a subsequent taker of the property who acquires an interest without notice of the installment land contract.

Counsel for the installment purchaser should have the contract recorded in order to provide notice to third parties and so protect the purchaser’s interest in the contract and the land. In addition to protecting the purchaser’s interest against third parties, recording the installment contract may also give the purchaser protections in the event of vendor’s or purchaser’s bankruptcy.

A vendor is more likely to succeed in clearing his title if he records a quitclaim deed or release that the purchaser has signed after the contract has been executed. Under established mortgage law, a mortgagor can relinquish his redemption rights if he does so in a separate, subsequent transaction for adequate consideration. Courts will analyze these transactions closely to make sure that there has been no overreaching or other unfair conduct by the mortgagee, but the deeds are commonly employed and accepted as valid. By analogy, an installment purchaser should be able to relinquish his redemption rights or otherwise grant a valid release or quitclaim deed at a time when he is in default. The vendor might fairly and lawfully seek an executed quitclaim deed in exchange, for example, for a waiver of default or some favorable restructuring of the purchase terms. If a transaction of this type is substantively fair to the purchaser at the time it is made, the release or quitclaim deed should be valid and should serve to clear the vendor’s title. At the least, it seems likely that a court would uphold a release or quitclaim deed executed by a purchaser who had already lost his rights through abandonment or forfeiture. In such a case, the release or quitclaim deed would not cut off the purchaser’s redemption rights, since the purchaser would have lost them already.

2.      Right of Possession

The purchaser and vendor are free to agree on when the purchaser shall take possession of the property. In the typical earnest money contract, possession passes at the time of closing when the purchaser has paid the full purchase price and title has transferred. In the typical installment land contract, on the other hand, possession passes when the contract is signed, although the parties are free to agree otherwise.

Because of the uncertainty in the law on the issue of possession after the installment contract is signed, a well drafted agreement should specifically memorialize the parties’ understanding on this issue. Similarly, the agreement should indicate which party is obligated to pay real estate taxes and whether the purchaser must pay interest on the installment debt.

3.      Purchasers Use of the Property

As a general rule, a purchaser who has lawful possession of property can use it as he sees fit so long as he does not adversely affect the vendor’s security interest. Stated otherwise, the purchaser can use the property subject only to an obligation to avoid waste, both permissive and affirmative.

Vendor’s counsel might include in the installment contract specific provisions barring the purchaser from destroying and damaging the property or allowing it to deteriorate, much in the way that standard mortgages do. In the event a vendor desires restraints on the purchaser’s ability to alter the property greater than those provided by the case law, vendor should put these expressly in the contract. Vendor may also specify that destruction of the property breaches the contract, enabling the vendor to assert the contract remedies.

4.      Destruction of the Property

The installment contract can resolve many of ambiguities associated with the risk of loss by specifically allocating risk of loss to a particular party and by stating how insurance proceeds are to be applied in the event of a loss, much in the way that mortgages often provide for the use of such proceeds.

5.      Purchaser’s Ability to Assign

Generally, a purchaser is free to transfer his rights under an installment land contract without the prior consent of the vendor. The transfer can be in the form of an assignment of the original purchase contract or in the form of a resale under a new purchase agreement.

Therefore, careful drafting may eliminate ambiguity as to the parties’ intent on the right to assign. However, the parties’ agreement, no matter how clear, may be trumped by a judicial decision based on public policy grounds that finds that certain restrictions on transfer are unenforceable.

6.      Pre-payment

A vendor who wants to avoid prepayment or to delay it for some specified period should insert an express clause to that effect into the contract.

7.      Forfeiture and other remedies

When specifying a right to forfeiture in a contract, vendor’s counsel should make sure that there is no implication that other remedies are unavailable, perhaps by stating that forfeiture is available in addition to other remedies at law or in equity or by expressly specifying those other remedies. Many vendors may profit from suing for contract breach, specific performance or recission instead of forfeiture.

A vendor who wants to regain property has, depending upon the jurisdiction, four remedies from which to choose: (1) forfeiture; (2) rescission; (3) strict foreclosure; and (4) contract termination followed by a suit for contract damages. A vendor who does not want to regain the property can either seek a foreclosure by sale or bring an action for specific performance or full payment of the purchase price.

When the vendor does not want to recover the property, the best remedy for the vendor may be to sue for specific performance and to ask the court, if the price is not paid within a reasonable period of time, to order the sale of the property. If the purchaser performs, the vendor receives the full amount that he is due. If the purchaser does not perform, the property is sold, and the money goes first to the vendor. To date, courts have viewed this remedy as distinctly different from a request for foreclosure. Thus, they have allowed the vendor, after the property is sold, to recover a deficiency judgment, even if a state anti-deficiency law would bar a deficiency after a mortgage foreclosure. If anti-deficiency laws are not a problem in the jurisdiction, a vendor could as easily bring an action for foreclosure by sale, particularly if formal, relatively expedited procedures are available to process foreclosure requests.

Underground Trespass in the Bakken Oil Patch

Posted on: February 25th, 2014
by David Ganje

UNDERGROUND TRESPASS IN THE BAKKEN OIL PATCH

My old professor way back when held forth that man owns everything from heaven to hell. He meant to tell us that a landowner owns all the skies above and the ground deep below.  He is to be forgiven for this bold utterance because he was, I believe, born before the invention of airplanes and geologists.  His comments about ownership rights however present an interesting question for the Bakken.  What is the ground ‘below’?  Who owns it? Who has rights to it?  Both property owners and producers should be attentive to these questions. North Dakota through the courts and through legislation as well as regulation has anticipated these important questions.  Let us take a look.  We will learn that in our modern world my old professor was wrong—a man’s ground is not necessarily his castle.  To be sure North Dakota does recognize that the owner of land has the right to the surface and to everything permanently situated beneath or above it.​  But let’s look at this old law in the modern oil patch.

I will leave other issues such as injection well trespass for another discussion. As a general law matter subsurface trespass is the bottoming of a well on the land of another without his consent.  In North Dakota the Supreme Court addressed the issue of subsurface trespass in the modern context of horizontal drilling. In an important case a few years ago a mineral rights owner, the Plaintiff claimant, owned an interest in a quarter section of land. The oil company producer Defendant sought a voluntary pooling agreement of all interests in the land in order to drill a horizontal well.  The Plaintiff refused to do a deal.  The Plaintiff also told the producer that it would consider any subsurface action affecting its leasehold interests as a subsurface trespass.  The producer then petitioned the ND Industrial Commission to ‘force pool’ the Plaintiff’s interest so that the property including the Plaintiff’s claims could be drilled. The Commission approved the application. When the well was drilled the Plaintiff sued the producer Defendant under the legal theory of trespass. The Supreme Court held that in North Dakota the state has created a pro development policy and certain statutory and regulatory powers to promote, manage and develop natural resources in the state. The Court said that the state had the right to “impose such restrictions upon private (property) rights as are practically necessary for the general welfare of all.”   The state some time ago also adopted an act which modifies the old English practice called the ‘rule of capture’  by authorizing the Industrial Commission to set spacing units for a common source of supply ‘when necessary to prevent waste, to avoid the drilling of unnecessary wells, or to protect correlative rights.’  These powers include so called spacing and pooling powers.  The court in effect held that the long established legal right to sue in trespass was nullified by these special modern statutes and policies.  Not discussed in the case was the legal concept of a ‘taking’ of a man’s property and the right to just compensation for the taking.  In North Dakota that issue is dealt with in the spacing or pooling order issued by the Industrial Commission where the nonconsenting party is to have their fair share determined if such a taking is to occur.

Subsurface trespass could still be an enforceable legal claim in situations that do not involve spacing and pooling powers. Courts have and could uphold a trespass claim in circumstances such as a slant well entering an adjoining parcel.  An improperly located or directed well can occur from bad planning, bad surveying, bad mapping or bad faith.  The public policy considerations outlined by the Court in the forced pooling case do not apply in traditional trespass claims. The law’s preference to promote and develop natural resources is not an argument that would win against a producer who has drilled a slant or deviated well causing entrance onto someone else’s property without permission.

 

 

Surface trespass still exists as a damage claim in North Dakota.  Problems and possible damages from surface claims in the oil patch are also partially addressed by modern North Dakota legislation.  The state has adopted a special oil and gas production compensation act to address harm to surface owners whether or not they hold an oil and gas lease.  This act changes the way harm or damages are calculated. The law creates a statutory ‘baseline’ of strict liability rather than negligence.

Producers, developers and surface owners can reduce potential problems in trespass by full disclosure, complete professional research of the legal and geological issues before starting a project, and by putting everything on the table at a very early stage in a project.

Author:   David Ganje.   David Ganje of Ganje Law Offices practices in the area of natural resources, environmental and commercial law in North and South Dakota and has offices in Rapid City

Western States Water Council

Posted on: February 23rd, 2014
by David Ganje

Western States Water Council

5296 Commerce Drive, Suite 202

Murray, UT 84107

                                                                       

Phillip C Ward, Chairman

Re:  Western States Water Council Fall Meeting  — Missouri River Water Storage Reallocation Study

Mr. Ward,

I write regarding the Council’s fall meeting. The proposed agenda for the 2013 fall Meeting of the Western States Water Council (WSWC) in Deadwood will address, among other topics, recent developments in Indian Reserved Water Rights Claims and of the Missouri River Natural Flows. It is my understanding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter Corps) will also be sending representatives to attend the Deadwood meeting, and  intends to meet with the WSWC to discuss the Missouri River Water Storage Reallocation Study. I provide comments regarding the study and the project it entails. The comments will focus on certain important aspects of the Oahe Dam Reallocation Study, which is one of the several sites for the study conducted by the Corps. My comments will not include other important issues that might otherwise be considered during review of the study, such as NEPA, the NHPA, pending legislation, or constitutional questions regarding reserved rights and the taking of water. While I am a member of the South Dakota State Bar Committee on Natural Resources and the Environment, however, the comments in this letter are my own and do not reflect those of the Committee.  Additionally, although I attempted to confer with the author of the Corps’s 204 page Oahe Dam Water Storage Reallocation Study before submitting this letter, he has declined to speak with me on the subject.

On August 6, 2013 the WSWC provided a position paper on this subject to the Corps. The paper discussed states’ legal rights to the natural flows of water as affected by the Corps’ project. This letter, and my comments, address additional matters which were not discussed in the WSWC August 6 paper. I will review the Oahe Dam Reservoir Report, one of several reservoir reports put forth by the Corps on the various dam sites.  The “Oahe Dam/Lake Oahe Project Surplus Water Report” (hereinafter Report) is a 204-page document detailing the Corps’ proposal to first identify and then subsequently designate surplus reservoir water—with the purpose of making surplus reservoir water available for municipal and industrial water use. The Report provides information on existing uses and identifies the various contemporaneous users of Missouri River water.  These users include private parties, the state governments whose borders run along the Missouri River, and various Indian Tribes.  The Report reflects that the project is granted legal authority under Section 6 of the 1944 Flood Control Act, which permits the Corps to enter into surplus water agreements and issue easements for yet-to-be-determined, undistributed surplus water.

The Corps is a federally created ‘regulatory monopoly’ in its particularized areas of authority. The Corps is in effect the world’s largest civil engineering firm. The Corps is the Nation’s largest, single producer of hydroelectricity.  In the United States alone, the Corps operates 75 hydropower projects which house 349 generator units, with a total capacity of 20.7 million kilowatts, or about 3.5 percent of the Nation’s total electric power production. Along the Missouri River, the Corps operates a total of 36 generator units capable of producing approximately 2.4 million kilowatts of power. These power plants and dams along the Missouri River—authorized by Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1944, commonly called the “Pick-Sloan Act”—include the Oahe Dam. The Act authorized the managing of Missouri River to provide for flood control, navigation, municipal and industrial water supply, recreation, and hydropower generation. The management of Missouri River water, however, was not delegated to the Corps.

 The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) is the federal agency that markets and delivers the power produced at the Missouri River power plants within a 15-state region of the central and western United States. WAPA buys and sells power from 56 hydropower plants around the nation. WAPA markets this power to rural electric cooperatives, municipal and public-owned systems. The Missouri River reservoirs are WAPA’s largest producer of energy. The Oahe Dam near Pierre, South Dakota and the Garrison Dam—which creates Lake Sakakawea in western North Dakota—are the two biggest power producers in the Missouri River system. According to the 2012 Corps’ Mainstem Reservoir Report, the Oahe Dam produced 2,908,388 kWh of electricity in 2012.  WAPA is mandated to sell this energy at “the lowest cost consistent with sound business principles” which is generally understood to be at the “cost of production.” This includes repayment to the U.S. Treasury, costs associated with construction, and operation and maintenance costs for the Pick-Sloan Project facilities. These power plants and dams produce revenue for the US government. The Corps now proposes to produce revenue for the US government by selling surplus water from the reservoirs.

A “surplus” is a quantity or amount in excess of that which is required or that which otherwise exists. Determining a surplus in the proposed project necessitates two questions: (1) what are the qualitative existing rights to the water in the reservoir; and (2) what is the quantity of water used or that could be used, under the existing right? Intuitively, the first question requires a determination of who is currently using the water, whom has the right to use the water presently and in the future, and under what rights permit such usage. In the second question, one should determine whether the existing right quantifies as water used or water that could be used. Only after conducting both a qualitative and quantitative review would the Corps be able to properly propose, or ostensibly deem, what is “surplus water.”

The existing rights here include the contemporary use of reservoir water as well as any current and future legal rights to use the water. The Report provides statistics, projections, and data, but is absent of analysis on the existing water rights of the parties to be affected by the project. Stated differently, the Report does not examine the first question. For example, on page 4-8 the Report acknowledges South Dakota’s claim that the natural flows of the Missouri River water are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction and authority of the states. Nevertheless, the Missouri River’s waters are being impounded by the Corps’ reservoirs; the Corps does not consider this claim in its calculation of surplus water, neither does it incorporate the claim in its analysis, nor quantify the claim amount. The underlying authority by which the Corps proceeds with the project does not legally authorize the Corps to dismiss such a claim. Such substantive property right determinations of the states and Tribes are left to separate legislation, court decision, compact, or treaty. The Corps’ rulemaking authority does not extend to superseding legal claims to water rights by Indian Tribes or the states.

In its Report the Corps proposes to sell “surplus water” from the Oahe Dam/Lake Oahe Project by entering into water supply agreements with various users. The Corps has identified 57,317 acre-feet/year of water as “surplus”. How did the Corps arrive at that determination?  The Report states there are 84 water withdrawal related easements at the Oahe Dam/Lake Oahe Project. The Corps has allocated 52,106 acre-feet for existing use, even though it acknowledges “the quantities of water being withdrawn through these easements are difficult to determine from the available data.”  The Corps, nevertheless, adds its estimated 10% future growth in water use to its 52,106 acre-feet/year allocation in order to arrive at the 57,317 acre-feet/year surplus water valuation.  The Report states that the estimated growth was “determined using best professional judgment and accounts for a variety of risk and uncertainty factors relevant to potential future water demand”. The exact methodology in establishing the estimated growth in use of water was not discussed in the Report. “The Corps keeps records on easement allocations, it does not collect data on actual water usage.”

In regard to water use for irrigation purposes, the Report states surplus water agreements “may be for domestic, municipal and industrial uses, but not for crop irrigation.”The limitation of the proposed project’s scope draws a thin line. On one hand, the Corps has no statutory or rulemaking-authority to manage, address, or sell water for irrigation purposes. On the other hand, the states and Tribes have legal authority to manage, address, or sell river water for irrigation purposes. This issue creates an administrative nightmare for the states and Tribes. Irrigation accounts for more water usage than domestic, municipal, and industrial uses combined. Even more disquieting is that the Corps’ own procedural manual indicates that agricultural irrigation is not eligible to be included in this project.

In support of the project the Corps provides an annual cost comparison chart indicating that a savings of $10.7M could be realized. The Report, however, is silent on whom the beneficiary of these savings might be. Moreover, the Corps miscalculated savings when it applied a volume of 57,317 acre-feet/year in its valuation. The proper measurement of “surplus water” volume would be 5,211 acre-feet/year, because this figure distinguishes between the “No Action” alternative (new groundwater) and the “Proposed Action” alternative (the surplus water). Furthermore, the unit cost of groundwater and additional Lake Oahe water in the annual cost comparison chart is created using USGS water usage data, which is not consistent with water usage data provided by the permit issuing authorities in North Dakota and South Dakota. Use of the USGS water usage date leads to an inflated calculation of savings.

The Report does not address the legal authorization of the Corps to undertake a surplus water program, relative to Tribal reserved water rights under the Winters Doctrine and under the Treaty of Fort Laramie of April 29, 1868. Both of these historic legal events occurred before the Flood Control Act, which was passed in 1944. On the matter of reserved rights, the Corps has stated:

Unless specifically provided for by Federal statute, quantification of water rights does not entail an allocation of storage at Corps reservoirs.  The Corps recognizes, however, that the tribes have claims to reserved water rights, and will, to the extent possible, continue to operate the Mainstem Reservoir System [System] based on that recognition.

The Flood Control Act at Section 6 states

 The Secretary of War (now Army) is authorized to make contracts with States, municipalities, private concerns, or individuals, at such prices and on such terms as he may deem reasonable, for domestic and industrial uses for surplus water that may be available at any reservoir under the control of the War Department (now Department of the Army): Provided, That no contracts for such water shall adversely affect then existing lawful uses of such water.

Indian Tribes are not subject to the Corps’ general authority to create or impose surplus water regulations. The Supreme Court has held that Tribal reserved water rights are paramount to other rights, including water rights under a prior appropriation system. The Ninth Circuit has held that, “Indians were awarded the paramount right regardless of the quantity remaining for use of white settler.” Thus, both statutorily and at common law, reserved water rights are an exception to the general rule that state law controls the management and allocation of water rights relative to Tribal water rights. A federal reserved water right has a priority date corresponding to the date of the statute, executive order, or treaty creating the reservation, regardless of whether the water at issue has ever been put to actual use. Similarly, the quantity of a federal reserved water right is not determined by the amount of water put to beneficial use. It is determined, rather, by the amount of water necessary to carry out the primary purpose of the reservation. Because the priority date of a federal reserved water right is unrelated to the actual use of water, such a right cannot be lost by non-use, unlike a water right secured under state law.

The foregoing comments indicate issues concerning the Corp’s Report and its implementation. Please feel free to circulate this letter to interested parties General Counsel for WSWC has requested a copy of this letter. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further.  Thank You.

                                                                                                 Sincerely,

                                                                                                 /S/David L Ganje

                                                                                            David L Ganje

 

 

CC

The Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

108 Army Pentagon

Washington, DC 20310-0108