Water Rights Archive - Attorney Blog | Natural Resources, Commercial Law

Archive for the ‘Water Rights’ Category

Surface Water Rights & Surface Water Drainage, A Modern Problem

Posted on: November 11th, 2015
by David Ganje

Surface Water Rights and Surface Water Drainage, A Modern Problem

Surface Water drainage issues are longstanding issues in agricultural production areas, and have a significant effect on the agricultural economy of a state. South Dakota, by way of example, has been plagued by surface water drainage problems for decades. Surprisingly, there is little coherent or efficient planning to meet the challenge. Instead, property owners and government agencies have witnessed debates, numerous court cases, and the failure of new legislation capable of addressing the issue. The state has experimented and over the years implemented a smorgasbord of agencies with authority over water issues including the State Water Management Board, County Drainage Commission statutes, irrigation districts, water user districts, water project districts, water development districts, conservation districts, and watershed districts. The results are less than successful when one considers the state’s drainage problems. There are benefits to water drainage, both environmentally and economically. However, the road to effective water drainage law and policy remains elusive in South Dakota, partly due to the unwillingness of those in authority to exercise existing rights given to the state’s leaders.

Surface water drainage is defined as the depletion of water from a water-logged piece of land. By draining off excess water, soil goes from saturated to unsaturated, allowing air to better move through the soil, making it healthier. This can result in a decreased amount of runoff and topsoil loss with water drainage, also improving soil quality. By making the soil healthier, crops are healthier, more abundant, and typically generate better profits.

Water drainage is beneficial environmentally as well as economically. Studies done by North Dakota State University indicate that there is a 30-50% yield increase in fields that have added tile drainage systems. This yield change increases revenue, as well as the quality of the land in general.

Despite the evidence that supports water drainage systems, dispute about the benefits remain, including the questions: How does one drain the water? Where should it go? And how much is too much?

A few Water Rights concepts, such as the Civil Law Rule, should be considered. The Civil Law Rule states that a lower estate is responsible for the water that naturally drains across it, and whatever trouble that may come with it – however, an upper estate cannot lawfully do anything to increase this burden. This means that an upper landowner cannot add to the natural volume of water the lower landowner would naturally receive, or change the course of the water’s flow. These principles have been demonstrated and applied in numerous court cases.

For example, in the 1909 South Dakota case of Boll v. Ostroot, in which the defendant dug a ditch to drain water onto the plaintiff’s lower lands, the court ruled that the defendant could not lawfully discharge water onto another’s land through an artificial channel. In addition, it was also ruled that one could not change the natural course of the water’s natural drainage path.

More recently, the 1985 case of Gross v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co. held that discharge is allowed over, but not onto another’s land. The principle is that drainage can flow but not in such a manner as to create a new water depository. The precedents and general guidelines set by these court cases are not enough to combat all of South Dakota’s water drainage issues.

Part of the problem lies in South Dakota’s 1985 water drainage statutes which offer guidelines such as when permits are needed, the application process, coordinating precise drainage areas, and so on. The law allows for both creating drainage plans and managing drainage controls. While this may have been effective in theory, in practice it falls short. For example, the manpower, data, and resources necessary to carry out all that the ordinance calls for are not widely available and are often given as the reasons for the failure of counties to administer the law. The more accurate reason is that political leaders at the county level are reluctant to take the bull by the horns and ‘domesticate’ the water drainage issues. In addition, as of July 2012, only 18 out of 66 counties in South Dakota had a drainage ordinance in place, making it nearly impossible for the state as a whole to deal with all the complications that can arise.

With all the problems that water drainage and water drainage laws have brought up, what can be done to remedy and alleviate the situation? Fortunately, there are many options for South Dakota. To start, a minimum criteria needs to be established for drainage applications to act as a baseline for what is lawful. Following that, more definitive criteria to evaluate these applications need to be made in order to best protect all parties involved. Finally, a level of cooperation and consideration among all parties involved needs to be more actively employed.

It is evident that water drainage laws have caused hardships and issues in South Dakota for many generations. However, by employing new standards and better understanding water drainage rights and tactics, South Dakota has the ability to overcome these hardships and improve the land.

Letter to the Editor: A South Dakota Water Lottery

Posted on: October 20th, 2014
by David Ganje

Letter to the Editor: A South Dakota Water Lottery

Posted Aberdeen American News, Farm Forum: Monday, October 13, 2014 9:08 am

by David Ganje

While it has yet to come to the attention of the national environmental and natural resources community, the South Dakota state legislature passed a first-in-the-nation law this year in the field of natural resources. The state will use a ‘lottery system’ for the issuance of certain state managed water permits. The water lottery system is combined with a moratorium on water use for identified water bodies managed by the state. Under current South Dakota law, all water within the state’s jurisdiction is property of the people of the state. The right to the use of water may be acquired by private parties and municipalities by a state-managed appropriation procedure. The state has been historically a first in time, first in right state when granting water use rights. South Dakota’s ‘water management’ jurisdiction does not however apply to Indian Country or on federal lands. Water use in South Dakota is authorized when the state Water Management Board grants a private, beneficial use of the state’s water resources. An example of a private use is an irrigation permit. A water use permit is issued either as a new water use or as a vested water right for an existing water use if it predates 1955.

The new water lottery system comes into play in situations where the state Water Board has determined that an existing groundwater source is ‘fully appropriated.’ A water source is fully appropriated when the state rules that no new or further access to the water should be granted because it would prejudice the ability of the water source to recharge to an acceptable level. The lottery system will not apply to open or unappropriated aquifers. The Water Board under the new legislation can accept water permit applications even for a fully appropriated aquifer. A 30 day application time period will also be set for a fully appropriated aquifer by public notice. The notice gives prospective applicants the right to apply under the lottery system. The applications are then placed in a lottery drawing system. The actual method for drawing successful applicants has not yet been implemented but will be announced in the next several weeks. The ‘winning’ applicants will then have to wait under the state’s five-year moratorium on approval of permits in those instances when the state has made a designation of a ‘fully appropriated aquifer.’

A lottery system for resource development permits has been used in the past, but never by a state for access to state managed water. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management used a lottery system for granting oil and gas leases until 1987 but has not used it since. The state, of course, does not call this new law a lottery system. I do. The new unchallenged law describes the lottery system as a procedure in which, “the board shall create a priority list using a random selection process to be determined by the board.” This new lottery system is an effort to cure problems in past experiences when an aquifer is placed in a moratorium. One cannot criticize the conceptual fairness of the new law. The statutes attempt to treat water permit applicants seeking access to a particular aquifer equally by using the “random selection process” in a moratorium scenario. The law itself has some challenges in its language as well as in its untested procedure. It is soon to be implemented by the state Water Board and the S.D. DENR. The new law is a unique effort by the state to deal with natural resources stewardship issues. In that regard the legislature should be applauded. Will the bar of reason support this brave new attempt at fairness? Time will tell.

Tags: Environmental Law, Infrastructure Security, Natural Resources Law, Water Law, Water Regulation, Water Rights, Water Systems Security

Disclosure of Mineral Interests in North Dakota

Posted on: October 2nd, 2014
by David Ganje

Full property disclosure laws are needed in North Dakota. Current law does not require that the seller disclose information regarding mineral rights ownership at the time of a closing when selling real property.

Mineral rights affect the sale of real estate and affect its value. These often go unaddressed when selling property. The consequences of a failure to address these rights are not pretty. Surprises when doing a real estate deal should not occur. The era of “let the buyer beware” is long gone. I suggest that putting everything material on the table when doing a real estate sale is the best policy.

The need to protect purchasers through honest and full disclosure of mineral rights has also been borne out in the experiences of other states. Four years ago, Wyoming adopted a statute which requires sellers of property to disclose whether any mineral rights have been severed prior to a sale. The reason for the new law, according to the President of the Wyoming Realtor’s Association, was to avoid the unpleasant surprise encountered by people who bought property thinking that they owned the rights to minerals only to find that a third party would appear on their land, and start digging on the property. By making the buyer aware of the severance of mineral rights, Wyoming’s new disclosure law allows a prospective purchaser to make a more informed decision when purchasing. Recently in Florida a large home builder announced that it will stop severing mineral rights when selling property – after a local newspaper wrote a series of articles investigating the practice of selling property to people who learned of the practice only at the closing table where they felt pressured to consent.

Mineral rights can be severed from surface property rights on the same piece of property in North Dakota and do not automatically pass with title to the land in a sale. A third party can own the mineral rights to land. Title insurance is not the answer to this issue. Title insurance does not insure mineral rights on a property, nor does title insurance cover such things as water permit rights. When doing a real estate deal a purchaser should not assume that the title insurance policy will offer coverage.

“Full disclosure,” makes for a complete sale in a real estate deal. Full disclosure is the act of a seller of providing all the facts which the other party should know before the other party decides to buy. Full disclosure is not something I would always do on a first date when I was a young man – but that is another matter. Full disclosure is akin to the term used by contemporary politicians and pundits known as “transparency.” North Dakota’s property disclosure law should require a seller to disclose mineral associated with a piece of property.

Illinois Association of American Water Works Recognizes Ganje’s Water Workshops

Posted on: September 19th, 2014
by David Ganje

Illinois Association of American Water Works Recognizes Ganje’s Water Workshops

The Illinois Section of the American Water Works Association (ISAWWA) has recognized David Ganje of Ganje Law Offices for his recent workshops given for the Association. David Ganje recently presented two specialized workshops to the ISAWWA on the subjects of water law and water security. The Association wrote letters of appreciation to Mr. Ganje for the work and will use the presentations in future workshops.