Collaborative Governance and Environmental Justice: Disadvantaged Community Representation in California Sustainable Groundwater Management

Western Political Science Association | April 18th, 2019

A consistent critique of the theory and empirical research on collaborative governance is a lack of conceptualization and analysis of the role of political power and ine

A consistent critique of the theory and empirical research on collaborative governance is a lack of conceptualization and analysis of the role of political power and inequality (Foster 2002; Franks and Cleaver 2007; Morrison et al. 2017; Purdy 2012). The critique is more broadly applied to public policy and institutional analysis in general (Knight 1992; Moe 2005), and has implications the democratic legitimacy of governance arrangements (Alexander, Doorn, and Priest 2018). Political institutions provide differential access to decision-making (Besley and Case 2003), while political groups and individuals have higher or lower capacity to participate in governance systems and influence the outcomes (Olson 2009; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993; Stigler 1971). Thus, there continues to be a need for empirical research focused on the crucial issue of how these factors affect the structure and function of governance institutions. This article contributes to this discussion by analyzing the representation of disadvantaged communities in the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in California.

Collaborative Versus Technocratic Policymaking: California’s Statewide Water Plan

California State University, Sacramento, (CSUS) | January 1st, 2008

In 2001, the California Department of Water Resources embarked on one of the most elaborate public involvement processes in state history. Over the course of five years a

In 2001, the California Department of Water Resources embarked on one of the most elaborate public involvement processes in state history. Over the course of five years and 200 meetings, a 65-member Stakeholder Advisory Committee and a 350-member Extended Review Forum worked with agency staff to produce a new water plan for California. The process consumed some 23,000 person-hours in face-to-face discussions alone. Although the state had been updating its water plan approximately every five years since 1957, the 2005 process produced a dramatically different type of document. For one thing, the 2005 Update is conceptually more accurate, complex, nuanced, and comprehensive. The policy recommendations described in its strategic plan address a broader range of issues—including climate change and environmental justice—yet they engendered somewhat less political controversy than the policies identified in the 1998 Update. Moreover, there is evidence that the collaborative process used in 2001-2005 catalyzed improvements in the relationships among California's historically warring water stakeholders, and also sparked the beginnings of positive cultural changes within certain quarters of DWR.This research report authored by Ariel Ambruster catalogues the outcomes of the 2005 Water Plan Update process and those of its predecessor, the 1998 Update.

Collateral Damage: A citizen’s guide to fish kills and habitat degradation at the state and federal water project pumps in the Delta

Bay Institute | March 1st, 2012

Large-scale fish kills and habitat destruction aren’t an unusual occurrence at the giant federal and state pumps that export water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Large-scale fish kills and habitat destruction aren’t an unusual occurrence at the giant federal and state pumps that export water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to agribusinesses and cities in the southern half of the state. These events are business as usual. • Every day, between 870 and 61,000 fish – including from 200 to 42,000 native and endangered fishes – are “salvaged” at the pumps. Most die in the process. • On average, over 9 million fish – representing the twenty fish species considered in this report – are “salvaged” each year at the pumps. As many as 15 million fish of all species encountered are “salvaged” each year. • Up to 40% of the total population of the endangered delta smelt and 15% of the endangered winter-run population of Chinook salmon are killed at the pumps in some years. In the first half of 2011, over 8.6 million splittail were salvaged. • Salvage estimates drastically underestimate the problem. The numbers do not factor in the results of “indirect” mortality, as high levels of export pumping disrupt fish migration, shrink the amount of non-lethal habitat available to fish species, and remove vast amounts of biomass, including fish eggs and larvae too small to be screened at the pumps. • Export pumping causes the lower San Joaquin River to flow backwards most of the year and removes the equivalent of 170 railroad boxcars of water – and the accompanying fish, other organisms, and nutrients – from the Delta ecosystem every minute. • Large numbers of fish being entrained is a problem even for species that are not currently listed as “endangered.” Killing large numbers of fish year after year cuts off population growth in response to favorable conditions and can start the species on a downward path to extinction. As the species declines, the population impacts of entrainment become proportionately larger. • Entrainment is a real problem. But the same interests in the Delta export community who claim that it isn’t also back constructing expensive new conveyance facilities such as a peripheral canal or tunnel to solve the problem that they say doesn’t exist.

Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Report - Arizona, California, and Nevada, Interior Region 8: Lower Colorado Basin

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | May 13th, 2022

Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Report: Arizona, California, and Nevada

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | May 15th, 2024

In accordance with Article V of the Consolidated Decree of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. California et al. 547 U.S. 150 (2006) (Consolidated Decree): �

In accordance with Article V of the Consolidated Decree of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. California et al. 547 U.S. 150 (2006) (Consolidated Decree): “The United States shall prepare and maintain, or provide for the preparation and maintenance of, and shall make available, annually and at such shorter intervals as the Secretary of the Interior shall deem necessary or advisable, for inspection by interested persons at all reasonable times and at a reasonable place or places, complete, detailed and accurate records of: (A) Releases of water through regulatory structures controlled by the United States; (B) Diversions of water from the mainstream, return flow of such water to the stream as is available for consumptive use in the United States or in satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty obligation, and consumptive use of such water. These quantities shall be stated separately as to each diverter from the mainstream, each point of diversion, and each of the States of Arizona, California and Nevada; (C) Releases of mainstream water pursuant to orders therefor but not diverted by the party ordering the same, and the quantity of such water delivered to Mexico in satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty or diverted by others in satisfaction of rights decreed herein. These quantities shall be stated separately as to each diverter from the mainstream, each point of diversion, and each of the States of Arizona, California and Nevada; (D) Deliveries to Mexico of water in satisfaction of the obligations of Part III of the Treaty of February 3, 1944, and, separately stated, water passing to Mexico in excess of treaty requirements; (E) Diversions of water from the mainstream of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers and the consumptive use of such water, for the benefit of the Gila National Forest.” This Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Report: Arizona, California, and Nevada presents the records compiled pursuant to the Consolidated Decree for Calendar Year 2023. Copies of this and previous years’ reports may be found on the Bureau of Reclamation’s website.

Colorado River Aqueduct Recording Project 1998

National Park Service (NPS) | December 15th, 1988

The Colorado River Aqueduct Recording Project is part of the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), a long-range program that documents historically-significant eng

The Colorado River Aqueduct Recording Project is part of the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), a long-range program that documents historically-significant engineering, industrial, and maritime sites In the United States. The HAER program is administered by the Historic American Buildings Survey / Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) Division of the National Park Service. U.S. Department of the Interior. The recording project was co-sponsored during the summer of 1998 by HABS/HAER under the general direction of E. Blaine Oliver, Chief; and by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Gary M. Snyder, Chief Engineer, and Wally M. Lieu, Assistant Chief Engineer. The measured drawings, historical report, and photographs were prepared under the direction of Eric N. DeLony, Chief of HAER, The recording team included Supervisory Architect Andrew Johnston (University of California, Berkeley) and architects Chrysti Chun (Illinois Institute of Technology), Imola Klrlzsa'n (ICOMOS, Romania), Sydney Mainster (University of California, Berkeley), Elizabeth Mllnarik (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign), and Nina Shatberashvili (ICOMOS, Republic of Georgia); Project Historian J. Philip Gruen (University of California, Berkeley); and photographer Jet Lowe (Washington, D. C.) Additional drawings were provided by architects Christopher B. Brown (University of Washington) and Adrim Maksay (Transylvania Trust Foundation, Romania). Engineer Allien Whitsett (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) provided consultation and advice. Devon Kobayashi (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) served as HAER liaison.

Colorado River Aqueduct Route Selected for Metropolitan Water District Requires Pumping

Civil Engineering | February 10th, 1931

Colorado River Aqueduct, Historic American Engineering Record

National Park Service (NPS) | August 1st, 1998

The Colorado River Aqueduct pumps water from the Colorado River through, over, and across mountains and desert in a 242- mile-longmarchtothecoastalplainofSouthernCaliforn

The Colorado River Aqueduct pumps water from the Colorado River through, over, and across mountains and desert in a 242- mile-longmarchtothecoastalplainofSouthernCalifornia. When completed,itwasoneofthelongestwater-conveyancefacilitiesin the world. The aqueduct includes power lines, tunnels, siphons, covered conduits, open canals, dams, reservoirs, and five pumping plants, involving ingenious engineering solutions and newly- introduced construction equipment. The project also employed over 35,000 people during its eight-year span and as many as 10,000 at one time, making it southern California's single-largest work opportunity during the Great Depression. In 1995, the Colorado River Aqueduct was named a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Today, it is the major water supply for urban and suburban southern California.

Colorado River Basin August 2022 24-Month Study

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | August 16th, 2022

Colorado River Basin Climate and Hydrology State of the Science

University of Colorado, Boulder | April 15th, 2020

The Colorado River Basin currently faces unprecedented stresses. Persistent dry conditions since 2000, along with the increasing recognition that warming temperatures are

The Colorado River Basin currently faces unprecedented stresses. Persistent dry conditions since 2000, along with the increasing recognition that warming temperatures are impacting the hydrology of the basin, have led to great concerns about the long-term reliability of basin water supplies. With ever-higher stakes for water resource planning and decision making, an even greater emphasis is placed on the tools that support those activities, notably Reclamation’s operations and planning models and similar models used at other agencies. The usefulness of these system models depends on many types of datasets and forecasts that serve as inputs to them, as well as the research and scientific understanding underpinning this complex chain of data and models. The development and refinement of the different links of the chain necessarily involves researchers, forecasters, and water managers. New research efforts have advanced our understanding of the hydroclimate of the basin and how key hydroclimate processes, variability, and changes can be captured in data and models. This rapid expansion of the scientific knowledge base, and the increasing complexity of the data and models used to operationalize that knowledge, parallel the growing uncertainties about the future climate and hydrology. Accordingly, basin stakeholders have recognized the importance of reassessing the scientific and technical basis for management and planning.