Storms, Floods, and the Science of Atmospheric Rivers

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | August 9th, 2011

Imagine a stream of water thousands of kilometers long and as wide as the distance between New York City and Washington, D. C., flowing toward you at 30 miles perhour.

Imagine a stream of water thousands of kilometers long and as wide as the distance between New York City and Washington, D. C., flowing toward you at 30 miles perhour. No, this is not some hypothetical physics problem—it is a real river, carrying more water than 7–15 Mississippi Rivers combined. But it is not on land. It’s a river of water vapor in the atmosphere.

Stormwater Capture in California: Innovative Policies and Funding Opportunities

Pacific Institute | June 27th, 2018

Stormwater has traditionally been managed to mitigate flooding and protect water quality. However, its potential as a local water supply has gained recent attention in wa

Stormwater has traditionally been managed to mitigate flooding and protect water quality. However, its potential as a local water supply has gained recent attention in water-stressed areas. As climate change increases the risk of both floods and droughts in California, urban stormwater capture also offers a significant opportunity to enhance community resilience. Moreover, stormwater capture, especially when done with green infrastructure, can improve air quality, provide habitat, and reduce energy use, among other benefits. State agencies have made major efforts to support stormwater capture, from adopting statewide stormwater use goals to clarifying the regulatory framework and dedicating funds for green infrastructure and multi-benefit stormwater projects. This report presents a summary of regulations, laws, and statewide initiatives that create the legal framework for stormwater capture in California. In addition, the report explores examples of successful stormwater programs, initiatives, and funding schemes from communities in California and beyond that directly and indirectly support stormwater capture and use. It concludes with a set of recommendations to overcome obstacles and expand stormwater capture in the state.

Stormwater Capture Potential in Urban and Suburban California

Pacific Institute | June 10th, 2014

Communities throughout California are facing serious and growing threats to their ability to provide a safe, reliable supply of water. Drought, coupled with over-allocati

Communities throughout California are facing serious and growing threats to their ability to provide a safe, reliable supply of water. Drought, coupled with over-allocation of existing water sources, is affecting cities, farms, businesses, industries, and the environment all across the state. For many communities, 2013 was the driest year in a century, and the lack of precipitation has critical implications for the continued viability of surface water and groundwater resources that supply our cities. The long-term effects of climate change are likely to exacerbate this. Capturing and using or storing stormwater runoff when it rains can help communities increase water supply reliability—so they have the water they need when it doesn’t.

Stormwater Capture: Enhancing Recharge and Direct Use Through Data Collection

Southern California Water Coalition | April 26th, 2018

The purpose of this 2018 white paper update is to gain a better understanding of actual stormwater runoff capture volumes, costs, benefits, and project performa

The purpose of this 2018 white paper update is to gain a better understanding of actual stormwater runoff capture volumes, costs, benefits, and project performance across the region to inform future discussions. This white paper augments prior efforts and uses the most recent and best available stormwater project data. Previously in January 2012, the SCWC published its first white paper on stormwater titled Stormwater Capture: Opportunities to Increase Water Supplies in Southern California (SCWC 2012). The purpose of the 2012 white paper was to examine existing statewide policies, goals, and regional plans related to integrated stormwater management; trends, structure, and requirements of MS4 permits as they pertain to both opportunities and constraints to maximizing stormwater capture for water supply purposes; and the advantages and disadvantages of two strategies of stormwater management: onsite low impact development and regional stormwater capture and infiltration. Lastly, the 2012 white paper largely focused on conceptual stormwater projects and technical strategies for increasing stormwater capture. Since the 2012 white paper, many of the proposed projects were constructed and in operation. Other plans such as Metropolitan’s 2015 Integrated Resources Plan (MWD 2016), the City of Los Angeles’s Stormwater Capture Master Plan (LADWP 2015), and Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s LA Basin Study (LACFCD 2016) also estimated stormwater capture and costs. The SCWC saw an opportunity to evaluate the costs and benefits of these constructed stormwater capture projects and pursued a white paper update.

Stormwater Funding Options Providing Sustainable Water Quality Funding in Los Angeles County

California Contract Cities Association (CCCA) | May 21st, 2014

The Los Angeles region faces critical, very costly, and seriously underfunded stormwater and urban runoff water quality challenges. The Los Angeles County Flood Control D

The Los Angeles region faces critical, very costly, and seriously underfunded stormwater and urban runoff water quality challenges. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) led a multi-year effort to develop a sustainable revenue source for municipalities to manage stormwater programs and implement water quality improvement projects. This effort included special legislation and development of a proposed parcel fee, the “Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure,” to fund clean water programs. At extended protest hearings on a proposed parcel fee in January and March of 2013, the Board of Supervisors heard concerns about the fee and the fee program from public schools, the business community, other stakeholders and the public. The Board moved to close the public hearing and determined to “not proceed at this time with the Clean Water, Clean Beaches measure as proposed.” In June 2013, the Board adopted a motion requesting collaborative participation with the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD) and other wastewater management agencies to evaluate methods, assess the a potential model governance structure, and to help identify and secure other sources of funding. In response to the Board’s actions, the City Managers Committees of the California Contract Cities Association (CCCA) and the League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division (League) convened a City Managers meeting with representatives from public schools, environmental organizations, and the business community on June 27, 2013 to hear stakeholders’ concerns and suggestions directly. The City Managers attending the meeting authorized a Work Group to review stormwater funding options after the County’s proposed Clean Water, Clean Beaches funding initiative failed to move forward. The City Managers Work Group actively sought the input of key stakeholders from the environmental, public education, and business communities, and prepared this report to assist the Board, local decision makers, stakeholders, and the public in reaching a common understanding of the issues at hand and the potential solutions. The Managers found that to fully understand the issues, improved communication and education is necessary. This report describes the stormwater regulatory requirements speci c to the greater Los Angeles area, the complexities of funding stormwater programs, and the LACFCD’s funding initiative. It examines the regulatory framework for stormwater management, including the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 permit (stormwater permit) and the total maximum daily load (TMDL) programs. The report also summarizes the impacts of the federal TMDL Consent Decree for the Los Angeles Region signed in 1999, which has indirectly regulated the LACFCD, 85 cities, and the unincorporated County since that time. Further, it reviews estimated stormwater program compliance costs, the “pros and cons” of various funding options, and evolving opportunities. The report concludes with a series of recommendations agreed upon by the City Managers. Suggestions from an Elected Officials Committee and individual City Attorneys are also included in this report. The Work Group found that funding urban runoff programs is so complex and dynamic, and the solutions so costly, that the County and the Cities cannot follow a single funding strategy at this time. One option, for example, is to examine institutional roles to determine whether other agencies, such as the County Sanitation Districts, either provide a useful governance model or could play a new or different role in managing stormwater in the future. During the report development process, the Sixth Appellate Court clarified the application of Proposition 218 regarding the imposition of fees for the capture and use of stormwater for groundwater recharge (Griffith v. Pajaro Water Management Agency). This ruling could have major implications on funding options. These are only two examples of the changing nature and complexities in charting a path forward. The City Managers Work Group recommends a “multi-pronged” approach to address urban runoff funding issues, since our communities may encounter several dead-ends. A number of the recommendations require active management and a higher degree of organization by local government. The recommended actions are voluntary. The report is not advocating that any city, group of cities, or the County adopt stormwater fees. The managers are committed to local control; if a regional fee moves forward, each community should make its own decision whether or not to participate in the regional effort. However, there are steps that local governments can take that will assist in funding the new stormwater mandates. For example, cities should organize and be active in the water bond discussions. This report suggests a voluntary framework through Contract Cities and the League to organize those communities that desire to engage in implementing the recommendations found in this report. It should be noted that the recommendations involving California Contract Cities, the Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities, and the State League of Cities have not been of cially endorsed by these organizations at this stage of the process. The City Managers Work Group and the Elected Of cials Committee held detailed discussions with staff from both organizations in order to re ect their input and concerns. Recommendations involving these organizations, such as changes in State legislation, would need to be reviewed and approved by each organization.

Strategic Forest Reserves can protect biodiversity in the western United States and mitigate climate change

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | December 14th, 2021

Forest preservation is crucial for protecting biodiversity and mitigating climate change. Here we assess current forest preservation in the western United States using sp

Forest preservation is crucial for protecting biodiversity and mitigating climate change. Here we assess current forest preservation in the western United States using spatial data and find that beyond the 18.9% (17.5 Mha) currently protected, an additional 11.1% (10.3 Mha) is needed to achieve 30% preservation by 2030 (30 × 30). To help meet this regional preservation target, we developed a framework that prioritizes forestlands for preservation using spatial metrics of biodiversity and/or carbon within each ecoregion. We show that meeting this preservation target would lead to greater protection of animal and tree species habitat, current carbon stocks, future carbon accumulation, and forests that are important for surface drinking water. The highest priority forestlands are primarily owned by the federal government, though substantial areas are also owned by private entities and state and tribal governments. Establishing Strategic Forest Reserves would help protect biodiversity and carbon for climate adaptation and mitigation.

Strategic Plan for the Future of Integrated Regional Water Management in California

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | April 24th, 2013

Integrated regional water management (IRWM) was officially embraced by the State of California in 2002 with the passage of the Integrated Regional Water Management Planni

Integrated regional water management (IRWM) was officially embraced by the State of California in 2002 with the passage of the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act (SB 1672). Thanks to voter-approved bond funds, California has since made profound improvements in water resource management. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has supported IRWM with grants and technical services to regional water management groups (RWMGs) statewide. Forty-eight RWMGs now cover 87% of the state’s geographic area and 99% of the population. The names and locations of individual IRWM regions and RWMGs, along with other information, can be found at www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/fundingarea.cfm. DWR is developing the Strategic Plan for the Future of IRWM in California. The need for the strategic plan and the specific tasks that will be completed for the plan’s development are described herein. Information on how groups and individuals can be involved in the plan’s development are also included.

Strategic Plan for the Future of Integrated Regional Water Management in California: Review of IRWM Planning and Implementation in California

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | February 20th, 2015

Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) has become a water management standard throughout most of California following passage of the 2002 IRWM Planning Act (SB 1672)

Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) has become a water management standard throughout most of California following passage of the 2002 IRWM Planning Act (SB 1672). The dedicated efforts of regional water management groups and the support of state bond funds have resulted in 48 IRWM regions identifying and implementing integrated regional water management solutions to improve public safety, foster environmental stewardship, and support economic stability throughout the state. Under the principles of IRWM, individuals and agencies have built strong working relationships, identified regional water management needs, and defined crucial steps to meet those needs together.  IRWM is essential for California's future and is a key part of the California Water Action Plan. As the Department of Water Resources works with its partners to produce a Strategic Plan for the Future of IRWM in California (Strategic Plan), we have surveyed the IRWM landscape to identify key characteristics and trends in IRWM planning and implementation. Survey results were presented to stakeholders at the second round of Strategic Plan development workshops in October and November 2013 and subsequently updated to reflect IRWM planning and implementation efforts as of October 2014. These updated results, along with additional information, are presented in this technical memorandum. Please visit the Strategic Plan website at http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/stratplan/ to learn more about the Strategic Plan development effort. For more information about the California Water Action Plan, please visit http://resources.ca.gov/docs/california_water_action_plan/ Final_California_Water_Action_Plan.pdf.

Strategic Plan to Protect California Coast and Ocean 2020-2025

California Ocean Protection Council (COPC) | February 26th, 2020

Strategic Salt Accumulation Land and Transportation Study (SSALTS) Final Phase 1 Report – Identification and Characterization of Existing Salt Accumulation Areas

Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) | December 13th, 2013

The purpose of the Strategic Salt Accumulation Land and Transportation Study (SSALTS) is to identify the range of viable Central Valley alternatives for salt disposal to

The purpose of the Strategic Salt Accumulation Land and Transportation Study (SSALTS) is to identify the range of viable Central Valley alternatives for salt disposal to provide input for consideration during development of the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the region under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB). The findings will be used to guide discussions regarding establishment of regional salt management policies and the need for changes to the existing Central Valley RWQCB Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans) to facilitate salt disposal in a manner that is most beneficial to the region and consistent with the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Recycled Water Policy. This work is being conducted under the direction of the Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long- Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) initiative, which is developing the SNMP for the Central Valley. The SSALTS project is being conducted in three phases: Phase 1: Identify and Characterize Existing Salt Accumulation Study Areas–Selection of representative Study Areas to serve as prototype situational examples to facilitate discussions regarding salt accumulation and disposal in the Central Valley. Each of these Study Areas is being characterized to establish baseline information that may be used to support development of salt disposal alternatives in subsequent project phases. Phase 2: Develop Potential Salt Management Strategies–SSALTS will develop potential long- term salt disposal alternatives in three parts: (1) In-Valley alternatives; (2) Out-of-Valley alternatives; and (3) hybrid alternatives that combine In-Valley and Out-of-Valley salt disposal options. Phase 3: Evaluate Potential Salt Disposal Alternatives to Identify Acceptable Alternatives for Implementation – Alternatives developed under Phase 2 will be evaluated using selected feasibility criteria (e.g., regulatory, institutional, economic, technological, etc.). The outcome of this evaluation will be the identification and prioritization of acceptable salt disposal alternatives for potential incorporation into Central Valley SNMP as salt management implementation measures. This draft report represents the findings of Phase 1. Subsequent phases of SSALTS will be implemented following completion of this phase.