Increasingly frequent extreme weather events urge the development of point-of-use water treatment systems

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | August 13th, 2022

The frequency of extreme weather events, including floods, storms, droughts, extreme temperatures, and wildfires, has intensified globally over recent decades due to clim

The frequency of extreme weather events, including floods, storms, droughts, extreme temperatures, and wildfires, has intensified globally over recent decades due to climate change, affecting human society profoundly. Among all the impacts of these extreme weather events, the consequences to our reliable water supply have gained increasing attention as they exacerbate the inequities in health and education, especially in marginalized populations. In this perspective, we emphasize that extreme weather events are able to undermine a stable supply of drinking water through a number of approaches, and conventional centralized water treatment is insufficient at addressing these challenges. We urge that greater recognition, increased public awareness, and more efforts on technological innovation on decentralized, especially point-of-use (POU), water treatment should be prioritized to better help tackle the challenges faced by increasingly frequent extreme weather events.

Independent Forensic Team Report: Oroville Dam Spillway Incident

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 5th, 2018

The Oroville Dam spillway incident was caused by a long-term systemic failure of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), regulatory, and general i

The Oroville Dam spillway incident was caused by a long-term systemic failure of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), regulatory, and general industry practices to recognize and address inherent spillway design and construction weaknesses, poor bedrock quality, and deteriorated service spillway chute conditions. The incident cannot reasonably be “blamed” mainly on any one individual, group, or organization. During service spillway operation on February 7, 2017, water injection through both cracks and joints in the chute slab resulted in uplift forces beneath the slab that exceeded the uplift capacity and structural strength of the slab, at a location along the steep section of the chute . The uplifted slab section exposed the underlying poor quality foundation rock at that location to unexpected severe erosion, resulting in removal of additional slab sections and more erosion . Responding to the damage to the service spillway chute necessitated difficult risk tradeoffs while the lake continued to rise. The resulting decisions, made without a full understanding of relative uncertainties and consequences, allowed the reservoir level to rise above the emergency spillway weir for the first time in the project’s history, leading to severe and rapid erosion downstream of the weir and, ultimately, the evacuation order. . . . There were many opportunities to intervene and prevent the incident , but the overall system of interconnected factors operated in a way that these opportunities were missed. Numerous human , organizational, and industry factors led to the physical factors not being recognized and properly addressed, and to the decision-making during the incident.

Independent Panel Review of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan prepared for The Nature Conservancy and American Rivers

Nature Conservancy | September 19th, 2013

Two non-­governmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and American Rivers (AR), are evaluating their options for engagement with the Bay Delta Conservation P

Two non-­governmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and American Rivers (AR), are evaluating their options for engagement with the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). If approved, the Plan would become a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under the federal Endangered Species Act and a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under California law. The purpose of the Plan is to allow for construction of new water diversion facilities in the Sacramento-­San Joaquin Delta while also protecting aquatic and terrestrial species that may be adversely affected by the project and accompanying changes in the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) operations. The Plan also includes habitat restoration and a commitment to assist in the conservation and recovery of species that are listed for protection under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. With financial support from the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, Saracino and Mount, LLC, convened an independent panel of experts, with technical support from NewFields, Inc., to evaluate portions of the Plan. The panel, working jointly with TNC and AR, developed a series of technical and legal questions about the Plan. This report provides answers to these questions, along with limited recommendations on how to improve BDCP. To simplify analysis, this review focuses on conditions for federally listed fishes during the Early Long Term (ELT), a decade after a permit would be issued (approximately year 2025). These are described in detail in the BDCP Effects Analysis and accompanying Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. We compared the performance of three different scenarios: a No Action Alternative (NAA) where no new North Delta diversion facility is constructed, a High Outflow Scenario (HOS) where the facilities are operated in a way that allows for occasional high spring and fall outflows, and a Low Outflow Scenario (LOS) with lower spring and fall outflows. The review also emphasizes in-­Delta and Sacramento River watershed conditions during the ELT, with less attention to San Joaquin River conditions and fishes. Although multiple data sources were used in this analysis, most hydrologic data came from CALSIM simulations conducted by BDCP consultants. The Panel strongly cautions about the conclusions drawn from these simulations. Flow simulations have three compounding uncertainties that can lead to significant error: (1) uncertainty in system understanding and future conditions, (2) model uncertainties (particularly the relationships between 1-­, 2-­, and 3-­dimensional models), and (3) behavioral/regulatory uncertainty where the models cannot capture the scope of human behavior in operating the projects under various conditions. These uncertainties, which are not described in BDCP documents well, makes all of our conclusions contingent on the projects actually being operated as simulated.

Independent Review Panel (IRP) Report for the 2014 Long-Term Operations Biological Opinions (LOBO) Annual Science Review

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | December 1st, 2014

Independent Review Panel (IRP) Report for the 2015 Long-Term Operations Biological Opinions (LOBO) Annual Science Review

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | December 1st, 2015

This report presents findings and opinions of the Independent Review Panel (IRP) assembled by the Delta Science Program to inform the National Marine Fisheries Service (N

This report presents findings and opinions of the Independent Review Panel (IRP) assembled by the Delta Science Program to inform the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) as to the efficacy of water operations and certain regulatory actions prescribed by their respective Long-term Operations Biological Opinions’ (LOBO) Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Actions (RPAs) as applied from October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015 (Water Year 2015).  This year’s annual review focused primarily on: (1) Shasta Reservoir and Sacramento River temperature monitoring, modeling, and management, (2) the River Assessment for Forecasting Temperature (RAFT) decision support tool (model), (3) an Enhanced Particle Tracking Model (E-PTM), and (4) a USFWS report on past, present, and future approaches to incidental take of Delta Smelt.  After reviewing a required set of written documents (Appendix 1), the IRP convened at a public workshop in Sacramento, CA on 5-6 November 2015. The first day of the 2-day workshop included agency presentations and provided a forum for the IRP to interact and consider information presented on water operations, temperature modeling, monitoring and RPA Actions as implemented in yet another critically dry 2015 water year. On the second day, the IRP deliberated in a private session beginning at 9:00 a.m. in order to prepare and present their initial findings at the public workshop at 2:00 p.m., after which there was an opportunity for agency representatives, members of the public, and the IRP members to comment and otherwise exchange impressions and information. Subsequent IRP communication and deliberations were conducted via email and conference calls in the course of drafting this final report. Click here for federal agency response letter

Independent Review Panel (IRP) Report for the 2017 Long-term Operations Biological Opinions (LOBO) Biennial Science Review (January 24, 2018)

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | January 31st, 2018

Independent Review Panel Report for the 2016 California WaterFix Aquatic Science Peer Review

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | May 12th, 2016

This report presents the findings of the 2016 California WaterFix Aquatic Science Peer Review. An Independent Review Panel was convened by the Delta Science Program to pr

This report presents the findings of the 2016 California WaterFix Aquatic Science Peer Review. An Independent Review Panel was convened by the Delta Science Program to provide the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with an independent scientific evaluation of the methods and approaches for developing the joint Biological Opinion requirements and analyses prepared for the CDFW 2081(b) Incidental Take Permit application for the California WaterFix. The Panel was charged with reviewing: (1) selected sections of the Biological Assessment (BA) that seeks to predict the effects of the WaterFix project on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species and their designated critical habitats, (2) the draft Analytical Approach to developing the joint Biological Opinion (AABO) and (3) the proposed methods for assessing project effects on Longfin Smelt. After reviewing a set of documents (Appendix 1), the Panel participated in a public meeting in Sacramento, CA on April 5-6, 2016. On the first day of this meeting, the Panel interacted with agency representatives following their presentations on the three topics above. On day 2, the Panel communicated and discussed its preliminary findings to agency representatives and the public. This report summarizes the Panel’s findings and recommendations in full detail.

Independent Review Panel Report for the 2016-2017 California WaterFix Aquatic Science Peer Review Phase 2A

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | March 7th, 2017

This report presents the Phase 2A findings of the 2016-2017 California WaterFix (CWF) Aquatic Science Peer Review. An Independent Review Panel (Panel; Appendix 1) was con

This report presents the Phase 2A findings of the 2016-2017 California WaterFix (CWF) Aquatic Science Peer Review. An Independent Review Panel (Panel; Appendix 1) was convened by the Delta Science Program to provide the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to obtain the views of experts not involved in the CWF Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation and 2081(b) permit on the use of best available scientific information as it pertains to analyses of effects on aquatic California ESA (CESA)-listed species in the California WaterFix Incidental Take Permit Application [2081(b) application]. The agencies further requested review of the Adaptive Management Framework proposed to integrate future scientific research, monitoring, and decision making during construction and operations of CWF. Accordingly, the Panel was charged specifically with reviewing: (1) the draft Adaptive Management Framework for CWF and (2) the 2081(b) application analyses of the CWF impacts of take for winter-run Chinook Salmon, spring-run Chinook Salmon, Delta Smelt, and Longfin Smelt. After reviewing the charge (Appendix 2) and a set of prescribed documents (Appendix 3), the Panel participated in a public meeting in Sacramento, California on December 8-9, 2016. On the first day of this meeting, the Panel interacted with agency representatives following their presentations on the topics above. On the second day, the Panel communicated and discussed its preliminary findings to agency representatives and the public (Appendix 4).

Independent Review Panel Report for the 2016-2017 California WaterFix Aquatic Science Peer Review Phase 2B

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | March 7th, 2017

This report presents the findings of the 2016 California WaterFix (CWF) Aquatic Science Peer Review, Phase 2B. An Independent Review Panel (Panel; Appendix 1) was convene

This report presents the findings of the 2016 California WaterFix (CWF) Aquatic Science Peer Review, Phase 2B. An Independent Review Panel (Panel; Appendix 1) was convened by select staff of the Delta Science Program to provide the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with the views of experts not involved in the CWF Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation and 2081(b) permit on the use of best available scientific information in the California WaterFix Incidental Take Permit (CWF ITP) application.  The agencies further requested review of the Adaptive Management Framework proposed to integrate future scientific research, monitoring, and decision making during construction and operations of CWF. Accordingly, the Panel was charged with reviewing NMFS’ analytical approach and FWS’ analytical framework, status of the species and critical habitat, environmental baseline, and effects analysis sections of the draft BiOps on CWF for all ESA- and California ESA (CESA)-listed aquatic species and their critical habitat (see Charge, Appendix 2). After reviewing the charge and a set of prescribed documents (Appendix 3), the Panel participated in a public meeting in Sacramento, CA on January 23-24, 2017. On the first day of this meeting, the Panel interacted with agency representatives after they gave presentations on the topics above. On the second day, the Panel communicated internally and then discussed its preliminary findings with agency representatives and the public (Appendix 4).

Indian Nations in the US

National Congress of American Indians | November 11th, 2003

Table of Contents: Understanding Contemporary Tribal Government Brief History of Federal Indian Policy Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About Indian Na

Table of Contents: Understanding Contemporary Tribal Government Brief History of Federal Indian Policy Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About Indian Nations Tribal Sovereignty Treaties The Trust Relationship Federal Recognition The Structure of Tribal Governments Tribal Lands Indian Country Facts Taxation Indian Gaming The Federal - Tribal Relationship Today State Tribal Relations Future of Federal Programs Towards Indian  Nations Contacting Tribal Governments Bibliography and Resources