Water Archives - Page 3 of 47

Water

California Enacts Major Water Law Reform Legislation–But More Changes Are Needed

California State Capitol Building (credit: Wikipedia)

New law explicitly authorizes State Water Board to require water users to verify their water rights

The California Legislature has enacted and Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law SB 389, an important water law reform measure authored by State Senator Ben Allen. California has one of the most antiquated and outdated water rights systems of any Western state. To put it bluntly, California currently faces a 21st century water supply …

Continue reading “California Enacts Major Water Law Reform Legislation–But More Changes Are Needed”

An Important Groundwater Bill Lands on the Governor’s Desk

Guest Contributors Gabi Rosenfeld, Owen McAleer, and Adrianne Davies say AB 779, a bill they worked on with State Assemblymember Lori Wilson, will address inequities in groundwater adjudications.

Earlier this month, California’s Legislature passed a slate of bills that cover a range of environmental and climate issues. Among those was Assemblymember Lori Wilson’s AB 779, a bill we helped create to improve the groundwater adjudication process for all water users. Adjudications legally determine groundwater rights but can take years and cost millions of …

Continue reading “An Important Groundwater Bill Lands on the Governor’s Desk”

Why is there a Carrot Boycott in Cuyama Valley?

Small farmers and rural residents are calling for a boycott against Bolthouse and Grimmway Farms. Here’s what it says about California’s effort to manage groundwater.

When California lawmakers enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in 2014, it was an effort to tame the wild, wild west of water. Nearly a decade later, there’s been some progress creating local sustainability plans, but Big Ag corporations are still hogging water and bullying smaller groundwater users. Look no further than the fight heating …

Continue reading “Why is there a Carrot Boycott in Cuyama Valley?”

Bowing to the Inevitable

The Supreme Court declared open season on the nation’s streams and wetlands. New regs are the result.

On August 25, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (“the agencies”) issued a joint rule, which modifies their previous rule on federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act in order to conform with the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision. Sackett was a deeply misguided and harmful ruling — but it is nevertheless the law. The …

Continue reading “Bowing to the Inevitable”

After Sackett: A Multi-Prong Strategy

The Supreme Court’s wetlands opinion was terrible. Now what we do?

The Supreme Court’s opinion in the Sackett case dramatically curtails the permitting program covering wetlands. We urgently need to find strategies for saving the wetlands the Court left unprotected. We have a number of possible strategies and need to start work on implementing them immediately. Sackett was unquestionably a major blow, reducing federal jurisdiction over …

Continue reading “After Sackett: A Multi-Prong Strategy”

Having the Fox Guard the Henhouse?

Delegating Environmental Reviews to Project Sponsors

One of the most important provisions, of the new NEPA law, § 107(f), allows the lead agency to delegate preparation of environmental reviews to project applicants. There are unsettled questions about when this provision applies and how it interfaces with other parts of NEPA. There are clear conflicts of interest in assigning this role to …

Continue reading “Having the Fox Guard the Henhouse?”

UCLA Clinic Submits Amicus Brief in Water Rate Design Case

A trial court decision invalidated the City of San Diego’s tiered water rates. This amicus brief by the Environmental Law Clinic on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance and Los Angeles Waterkeeper argues a reversal is needed to pursue conservation and equity.

Court challenges to the use of tiered water rates in California are threatening the state’s own water conservation and affordability goals. That’s what’s at stake in a case called Patz v. City of San Diego. Climate change is intensifying California’s hydrologic variability and exacerbating the state’s water supply challenges. Dwindling water supplies have led …

Continue reading “UCLA Clinic Submits Amicus Brief in Water Rate Design Case”

Sackett and the Dangers of a New ‘Clear-Statement Rule’

The Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA will be bad for the nation’s wetlands. It is just as bad for democracy. 

The Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to defend a large portion of the nation’s wetlands and waterways from pollution. The decision strips key environmental protections from the Clean Water Act by narrowly defining which bodies of water can be regulated under the Act, making it the most …

Continue reading “Sackett and the Dangers of a New ‘Clear-Statement Rule’”

A decade of unraveling the effects of regulation on water innovation

By Michael Kiparsky, with Dave Smith, Nell Green Nylen, Luke Sherman, Alida Cantor, Anita Milman, Felicia Marcus, David Sedlak, Bernhard Truffer, Christian Binz, Sasha Harris-Lovett, Jeff Lape, Justin Mattingly, Dave Owen, Lars Tummers, Buzz Thompson

In a recent post, my colleagues and I reported on our most recent research output in a long series of projects examining the effect of regulation on water innovation. The post describes a new framework for understanding and, ultimately, improving relationships between regulators and wastewater utility managers who are seeking to implement novel technical solutions, …

Continue reading “A decade of unraveling the effects of regulation on water innovation “

The role of regulatory relationships in wastewater innovation

Five boxes are shown, one for each of the 5 characteristics. Arrows connect some of the boxes to one another. The first box is for “clarity.” It says “The relationship establishes explicit and mutually understood expectations regarding the utility’s and regulator’s respective responsibilities and goals.” The second box is for “capacity building.” It says “The relationship builds knowledge and abilities for both the utility and the regulator.” The third box is for “continuity.” It says “The relationship begins early and continues throughout project development and implementation.” The fourth box is for “trust.” It says “The relationship fosters willingness by the utility and regulator to take risks in exchange for the other party’s capability and willingness to deliver on commitments, as well as public confidence in both.” Finally, the fifth box is for “bounded flexibility.” It says “The relationship maintains the ability to adjust and adapt over time, including by (1) supporting project refinement, learning, and adjustment and (2) exploring the appropriate use of regulatory discretion.” Three arrows point from the clarity box to other boxes. One arrow points to the capacity building box and says “Helps parties identify their information needs.” A second arrow point to the trust box and says “Helps parties understand one another’s goals, responsibilities, and constraints + identify areas of alignment.” The third arrow points to the bounded flexibility box and says “Helps parties identify where flexibility may be possible and beneficial.” Two arrows point from the capacity building box to other boxes. One points to the trust box and says “Builds project-specific knowledge + builds ability to deal with innovation.” The other points to the bounded flexibility box and says “Supports project refinement and adjustment.” Four arrows point from the continuity box, one to each of the other four boxes. The arrow to the clarity box says “Maintains understanding of parties’ goals and expectations.” The arrow to the capacity building box says “Supports developing and maintaining the parties’ institutional and project-specific knowledge.” The arrow to the trust box says “Demonstrates a pattern of good-faith interactions.” The arrow to the bounded flexibility box says “Enables ongoing engagement around adaptive management + regulatory discretion.” Finally, an arrow points from the trust box to the bounded flexibility box. It says “Increases willingness to use adaptive management + supports exploring regulatory discretion.”

by Nell Green Nylen, Michael Kiparsky, and Anita Milman

Public water and wastewater utilities are increasingly struggling to meet society’s expectations. Their basic infrastructure is aging, budgets are tight, and they face a barrage of stressors, from population growth to climate change and shifting regulatory expectations. What’s more, in addition to performing their traditional function of protecting human health and water quality, many wastewater …

Continue reading “The role of regulatory relationships in wastewater innovation”

Is 2025 the Year of the Carbon Tax?

Carbon border adjustment mechanisms are increasingly the talk of Washington. UCLA Law’s Kimberly Clausing explains some of the options on the table.

Renewable Energy: A Timeline

Today’s wind and solar resources didn’t come out of nowhere.

Understanding Loper: A Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing?

The real world effects may be limited. Or they may undercut presidential power, to the surprise of advocates of the unitary executive.

Understanding Loper: The Grandfather Clause

Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.

Understanding Loper: The Primacy of Skidmore

A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.

$10 Billion Climate Bond Heads to the California Ballot

Prop 4 would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10 billion toward safe drinking water and groundwater, wildfire and forest programs, and to combat sea level rise.

Understanding Loper: Delegation & Discretion

Something similar to Chevron deference may still apply to many (most?) regulations.

Playing fast and loose with reality

How the US Supreme Court’s recent decisions enable greater reliance on “alternative” facts

(Energy) Independence Day

A post in which I surprise readers — and myself — with strong praise for George W. Bush.

California can help meet its climate goals by removing SERP’s sunset date

By Molly Bruce, Dave Smith, Michael Kiparsky, Derek Hitchcock, Peter Van De Burgt, Sydney Chamberlin, Megan Cleveland

Losing Chevron: What Does It Mean for California?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright will not necessarily impact how California courts review our state agency determinations. But we’ll feel it in other ways.

Water

New law explicitly authorizes State Water Board to require water users to verify their water rights

Guest Contributors Gabi Rosenfeld, Owen McAleer, and Adrianne Davies say AB 779, a bill they worked on with State Assemblymember Lori Wilson, will address inequities in groundwater adjudications.

Small farmers and rural residents are calling for a boycott against Bolthouse and Grimmway Farms. Here’s what it says about California’s effort to manage groundwater.

The Supreme Court declared open season on the nation’s streams and wetlands. New regs are the result.

The Supreme Court’s wetlands opinion was terrible. Now what we do?

Delegating Environmental Reviews to Project Sponsors

A trial court decision invalidated the City of San Diego’s tiered water rates. This amicus brief by the Environmental Law Clinic on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance and Los Angeles Waterkeeper argues a reversal is needed to pursue conservation and equity.

The Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA will be bad for the nation’s wetlands. It is just as bad for democracy.

By Michael Kiparsky, with Dave Smith, Nell Green Nylen, Luke Sherman, Alida Cantor, Anita Milman, Felicia Marcus, David Sedlak, Bernhard Truffer, Christian Binz, Sasha Harris-Lovett, Jeff Lape, Justin Mattingly, Dave Owen, Lars Tummers, Buzz Thompson

by Nell Green Nylen, Michael Kiparsky, and Anita Milman

TRENDING

Carbon border adjustment mechanisms are increasingly the talk of Washington. UCLA Law’s Kimberly Clausing explains some of the options on the table.

Today’s wind and solar resources didn’t come out of nowhere.

The real world effects may be limited. Or they may undercut presidential power, to the surprise of advocates of the unitary executive.

Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.

A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.

Prop 4 would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10 billion toward safe drinking water and groundwater, wildfire and forest programs, and to combat sea level rise.

Something similar to Chevron deference may still apply to many (most?) regulations.

How the US Supreme Court’s recent decisions enable greater reliance on “alternative” facts

A post in which I surprise readers — and myself — with strong praise for George W. Bush.

By Molly Bruce, Dave Smith, Michael Kiparsky, Derek Hitchcock, Peter Van De Burgt, Sydney Chamberlin, Megan Cleveland

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright will not necessarily impact how California courts review our state agency determinations. But we’ll feel it in other ways.

Perplexed? Worried? Here’s a guide to a fraught area of law.

The Supreme Court has already grabbed power from agencies through the major questions doctrine.

We used to have the Chevron test? What test do we have now?

Today’s wind and solar resources didn’t come out of nowhere.

Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.

A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.

Something similar to Chevron deference may still apply to many (most?) regulations.

How the US Supreme Court’s recent decisions enable greater reliance on “alternative” facts

A post in which I surprise readers — and myself — with strong praise for George W. Bush.

The Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA will be bad for the nation’s wetlands. It is just as bad for democracy. 