Delaware River Basin Commission October 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The Delaware River Basin Commission (``Commission'' or ``DRBC'') will hold a public hearing to receive comments on proposed amendments to the Commission's Basin RegulationsWater Supply Charges and Comprehensive Plan concerning certificates of entitlement. No changes in the substance or administration of the rule are proposed. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to clarify the language of the rule to conform to the Commission's past decisions and current practices in order to provide better notice to users as to how the Commission is implementing its entitlements program and to avoid future controversy. Background. The Delaware River Basin Compact (``Compact''), the 1961 statute that created the DRBC and defined its powers, authorizes the Commission to charge for the use of facilities that it may own or operate and for products and services rendered thereby. Compact, Sec. 3.7. Congress limited this authority by providing that the Commission cannot charge for water withdrawals or diversions that could lawfully have been made without charge as of the effective date of the Compact. Id., Sec. 15.1(b). By Resolution No. 64-16A in 1964 the Commission authorized a water charging program. It provided for the revenues generated by the program to be used for repayment of the nonfederal share of the investment cost of water supply storage facilities associated with federal projects within the Basin. In anticipation of Commission investment in storage at the Beltzville Lake and Blue Marsh Reservoir projects in Pennsylvania, the Commission by Resolution No. 1971-4 defined, among other things, the means by which it would establish water charging rates. Consistent with Section 15.1(b) of the Compact, Resolution No. 1971-4 provided that charges would be applicable only to the amount of water withdrawn in excess of the amount taken or legally entitled to be taken by an entity during the preceding year. By Resolution No. 74-6, the Commission instituted a system of water supply charges for surface water withdrawals within the Basin. That resolution provided for the issuance of certificates of entitlement to then-current water users, establishing the amount of water each could lawfully take from the surface waters of the Basin without charge, consistent with Section 15.1(b) of the Compact. The resolution provided that a certificate of entitlement was not transferable, except under limited circumstances set forth in enumerated exceptions. Because entitlements treat users that commenced water withdrawals before the enactment of the Compact more favorably than users who commenced water withdrawals later, even though all users benefit equally from the facilities financed by water supply charges, courts and the Commission have emphasized the need to eliminate entitlements over time. Both the Commission and the courts have construed narrowly the exceptions to the rule that entitlements are not transferable, and the Commission has in its decisions consistently held that changes in ownership or control would extinguish a certificate. However, the language of the regulations has never explicitly defined ``changes in ownership or control.'' As a consequence, in the decisions that the Commission has been asked to make in its adjudicatory capacity and that the courts have subsequently been asked to decide, the matter of what constitutes a change of ownership or control has been controversial. In 1994, in response to a ruling by the Third Circuit in Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. v. DRBC, 824 F. Supp. 500 (D.Del. 1993), aff'd., No. 93-7475 (3d Cir. June 24, 1994) (per curiam), the Commission adopted Resolution No. 94-20. That resolution incorporated an explicit ``ownership and/or control'' test and eliminated the merger exception included in the Commission's regulations at the time. In addition, the exception for corporate reorganizations embodied in Section 5.2.1.F.2 of the Water Charging Regulations was amended to apply only when the reorganization ``does not affect ownership and/or control.'' In spite of the 1994 amendment, some members of the Basin community have continued to interpret the language of the rule in a manner contrary to the Commission's consistent interpretation. To avoid further controversy, the Commission proposes a more thorough revision of the language, intended to remove any ambiguity. Key Provisions. In addition to defining ``change in ownership and/ or control'' with much greater specificity, the proposed revisions also make clear that a merger at any tier in a corporate organization will extinguish a certificate held by a subsidiary in the same way as if the merger had occurred at the subsidiary level. Although the Commission has interpreted its rule this way in the past, the rules have never been explicit on this point. The proposed amendments preserve and clarify the corporate reorganization exception contained in the current regulation. The Commission traditionally has not extinguished an entitlement in the case of an internal reorganization, and it does not propose a change in this practice. The proposed amendments also preserve the existing exception for agricultural uses. Historically, agriculture has been treated differently than other uses. For purposes other than agriculture, an entitlement is issued to a user and would not be transferable to a different user, even if the use remained the same. In the case of agriculture, however, an entitlement effectively runs with the land, as long as the land remains in agriculture. The proposed amendments provide that an entitlement can be reissued to the successor of a holder of a certificate issued for agricultural water use, provided that the successor demonstrates that the water will continue to be used for agricultural irrigation purposes.