Nearly a Million Californians Lack Access to Safe Drinking Water

State of California | July 26th, 2022

Our audit of the State Water Board’s efforts to help provide Californians with safe drinking water highlighted the following: More than 370 of the State’s water

Our audit of the State Water Board’s efforts to help provide Californians with safe drinking water highlighted the following: More than 370 of the State’s water systems, serving nearly a million Californians, exceed the maximum contaminant levels for substances that are harmful to human health. More than 150 of these systems have been failing for at least five years. Hundreds of additional water systems are currently at risk of failing. The State Water Board has not prioritized the processing of water systems’ funding applications so that the systems can improve their water quality. Over the past five years, the average length of time for water systems to complete their applications and receive funding nearly doubled, from 17 months to 33 months. The State Water Board has not established performance goals or metrics related to its cumbersome application process. Although the State Water Board provides water systems with technical assistance to plan their improvements and apply for funds, it has not adequately monitored the performance of the technical assistance providers with which it contracts. The State Water Board needs to better ensure that its staff and its contracted providers do not duplicate each other’s outreach efforts.

Necessity for Comprehensive Adjudication of Water Rights on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers in Aid of the Central Valley Project

U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) | November 30th, 1942

Neonicotinoids and their Degradates in San Francisco Bay Water

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | July 1st, 2020

The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP) screened Bay waters for neonicotinoid pesticides, comparing levels to toxicity thresholds to

The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP) screened Bay waters for neonicotinoid pesticides, comparing levels to toxicity thresholds to inform placement of this class of emerging contaminants within the tiered risk-based framework. Neonicotinoids are one of the most widely used classes of insecticides in the world. Given their widespread use in agricultural and urban environments, and ubiquitous detections in surface waters, there is growing concern about consequences for non-target species such as aquatic invertebrates, insects, birds, and fish. In the summer of 2017, open Bay water samples were collected during the RMP Status and Trends Water Cruise. Samples were analyzed for 19 neonicotinoids and metabolites. The only neonicotinoid detected was imidacloprid, an active ingredient used in both urban and agricultural applications. Imidacloprid was detected at a single site above the method detection limits (2.2-2.6 ng/L) in Lower South Bay at a level of 4.2 ng/L. This value is within the range of concentrations found in a separate RMP study in water samples collected from the South and Lower South Bay margins in 2017. Imidacloprid was detected at 3 of 12 of the margin sites at levels between 3.9 and 11 ng/L; no other neonicotinoids were detected. Of note, these RMP studies appear to represent the first evaluation of ambient neonicotinoid concentrations in an estuarine environment in the nation. Two significant pathways of imidacloprid contamination to the Bay are treated wastewater and runoff from the surrounding, primarily urban landscape. Previous RMP monitoring of wastewater influent and effluent, consisting of 24-hour composite samples collected from eight wastewater treatment facilities in the Bay Area in September 2015, detected imidacloprid in 100% of samples at levels up to 310 ng/L. Independent surveys in both northern and southern California urban areas confirm that imidacloprid is a commonly detected insecticide in urban runoff. For example, a San Francisco Bay Area study in Fairfield and Suisun City detected imidacloprid at up to 1,462 ng/L in urban creek waters. However, these concentrations diminished to below detection limits in downstream samples as creek waters mixed with brackish waters from the Bay. While Bay Area agricultural runoff has not been well-characterized with respect to imidacloprid, this pathway may also be of potential interest. A hydrodynamic dilution spreadsheet model was applied as an additional screening tool to explore predicted spatial patterns and temporal trends in imidacloprid concentrations in Bay subembayments. Model inputs were based on available data on concentrations in wastewater effluent and runoff. The model predicted that Lower South Bay levels of imidacloprid would be higher than in other subembayments. The Lower South Bay was also the only subembayment where imidacloprid concentrations were consistently predicted to be higher than method detection limits. The model indicated that wastewater was a dominant pathway for imidacloprid. However, stormwater discharges during the wet season could potentially lead to higher levels in the Bay, suggesting that dry season monitoring may not fully capture maximum concentrations. The results of this simplified dilution model are based on limited input data and do not include all relevant processes and removal mechanisms; they should be interpreted with caution and best viewed as a first step toward quantifiable prediction of open Bay concentrations. Open Bay and margins monitoring of imidacloprid revealed that detected concentrations in Lower South Bay were comparable to or greater than protective US and European Union thresholds that range from 4.8 to 10 ng/L. These observations, in combination with widespread and increasing use of this pesticide in urban settings, indicate that this contaminant should be classified as a Moderate Concern in the RMP tiered risk-based framework for contaminants of emerging concern. Other neonicotinoid pesticides and degradates should be classified as Possible Concern, given their more limited availability in urban use pesticide products, as well as additional uncertainties, particularly the lack of chronic toxicity data and potential for cumulative impacts to wildlife. Additional monitoring is not recommended at this time, due to existing monitoring in urban streams conducted primarily by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). In the future, it may be appropriate for the RMP to explore opportunities for wet season monitoring in Bay water, or in urban runoff. Considering the low toxicity thresholds of these compounds (i.e., in the low ng/L range), analytical methods employed should be improved to provide method detection limits well below toxicity thresholds.

NEPA and CEQA: Integrating Federal and State Environmental Reviews

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) | February 18th, 2014

This handbook provides advisory guidance to Federal, state, and local agencies and others regarding projects that are subject to both the National Environmental Policy Ac

This handbook provides advisory guidance to Federal, state, and local agencies and others regarding projects that are subject to both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Once President Nixon signed NEPA on January 1, 1970, and California Governor Reagan followed suit signing CEQA into law on September 18 of the same year, these laws expressly required the incorporation of environmental values into governmental decision making. Those statutes require Federal, state, and local agencies to analyze and disclose the potential environmental impacts of their decisions, and, in the case of CEQA, to minimize significant adverse environmental effects to the extent feasible. NEPA was codified under Title 42 of the United States Code, in section 4331 et seq. (42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq.). Under NEPA, Congress established the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to ensure that Federal agencies meet their obligations of the Act. CEQ’s Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (hereinafter CEQ NEPA Regulations) are in Title 40 of Code of Federal Regulations section 1500 et seq. (40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq.). In California, CEQA was codified under Division 13 of California’s Public Resources Code, in sections 21000 et seq. (Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). The Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act are in Title 14 of California’s Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.; hereafter CEQA Guidelines). NEPA and CEQA are similar, both in intent and in the review process (the analyses, public engagement, and document preparation) that they dictate. Importantly, both statutes encourage a joint Federal and state review where a project requires both Federal and state approvals. Indeed, in such cases, a joint review process can avoid redundancy, improve efficiency and interagency cooperation, and be easier for applicants and citizens to navigate. Despite the similarities between NEPA and CEQA, there are several differences that require careful coordination between the Federal and state agencies responsible for complying with NEPA and CEQA. Conflict arising from these differences can create unnecessary delay, confusion, and legal vulnerability. Federal, state and local agencies have cooperated in the environmental review of projects ranging from infrastructure to renewable energy permitting. As the state and Federal governments pursue shared goals, there will be a continued need for an efficient, transparent environmental review process that meets the requirements of both NEPA and CEQA. Recognizing the importance of implementing NEPA and CEQA efficiently and effectively, the CEQ and the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) developed this handbook to provide advisory guidance on conducting joint NEPA and CEQA review processes. The CEQ oversees Federal agency implementation of NEPA, which includes writing the CEQ NEPA Regulations1 and preparing guidance and handbooks for Federal agencies. OPR plays several roles in the administration of CEQA, including developing the CEQA Guidelines in coordination with the California Natural Resources Agency, providing technical assistance to state and local agencies, and coordinating state level review of CEQA documents. The purpose of this handbook is to provide practitioners with an overview of the NEPA and CEQA processes, and to provide practical suggestions on developing a single environmental review process that can meet the requirements of both statutes. This handbook contains three main sections. First is a “Question and Answer” section that addresses the key similarities and differences between NEPA and CEQA. This section compares each law’s requirements or common practices, and identifies possible strategies for meeting the requirements of both laws. These strategies are not meant to prescribe methods that agencies must use; rather, this handbook provides suggestions that will help agencies identify and think through potential issues. Indeed, developing a common understanding of the NEPA and CEQA review processes and their differences at the beginning of a joint review process may be among the most important ways to conduct an efficient and effective review process. Second, this handbook provides a framework for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between two or more agencies entering a joint NEPA/CEQA review process. MOUs can clarify responsibilities and avoid potential conflicts. The MOU framework in this handbook highlights a number of issues that agencies can consider before embarking on their joint effort. This handbook is not intended to replace or replicate any existing MOUs; rather, it raises topics agencies might consider incorporating into their own MOUs. Much like the Q&A document, a key goal of this framework is to encourage state and Federal agencies to consider and resolve potential challenges common to joint NEPA/CEQA review processes in order to avoid complications late in the review process. Finally, the third section addresses the California Energy Commission (CEC) licensing process for decisions on thermal power plants 50 megawatts and larger. This licensing process is a certified regulatory program under CEQA and therefore the process and documents prepared by the CEC serve as the functional equivalent of a CEQA review (CEQA Guidelines, § 15251, subd. (j)). As noted above, this handbook is advisory and does not supplant the administrative regulations set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, or the CEQ NEPA Regulations. Agencies conducting an environmental review must also take into account any additional requirements or time periods established in an individual agency’s administrative regulations or procedures implementing NEPA and CEQA, which could prescribe additional or more stringent requirements than the CEQ NEPA Regulations and the CEQA Guidelines.

New and Emerging Technologies for Sustainable Fisheries: A Comprehensive Landscape Analysis

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) | April 1st, 2021

The oceans are at an inflection point. The excesses of the 20th century — over-exploitation of most of our accessible biological resources, over-pollution by plastics a

The oceans are at an inflection point. The excesses of the 20th century — over-exploitation of most of our accessible biological resources, over-pollution by plastics and other chemicals, over-crowding of coastal and marine space by unorganized and competing interests and over-capitalization of extractive industries — are being tempered by a rapidly growing realization that these excesses are having very real consequences, not just for marine life and ocean ecosystems, but for the food security and nutrition of the world’s population, the livelihoods of the communities that depend on the ocean and the very future of humanity itself. 

New Life for Eroding Shorelines: Beach and Marsh Edge Change in the San Francisco Estuary

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | April 1st, 2020

Wind, waves, storms, and changing water levels have reshaped shorelines for millennia and continue to do so today. The current shape of the San Francisco (SF) Estuary sho

Wind, waves, storms, and changing water levels have reshaped shorelines for millennia and continue to do so today. The current shape of the San Francisco (SF) Estuary shoreline is relatively new; 15,000 years ago, the California shoreline was west of the Farallon Islands and 140 meters below its current level (Cohen and Laws 1992, Malamud-Roam et al. 2007). By approximately 6,000 years ago (the end of the last glacial epoch), the sea had risen to nearly its present level and filled what is now San Francisco Bay, allowing marshes to form and maintain themselves (Atwater 1979). More recently, humans have changed the shape of the shoreline. During the 1850s, many marshes expanded extensively due to increased sediment supply from hydraulic mining in the Sierra Nevada (Gilbert 1917, Goals Project 1999). Diking, dredging, and filling of marshes for agricultural and urban development began in the late 19th century and continued through the first half of the 20th century.  Today, humans continue to reshape the shoreline through continued diking, dredging and filling as well as restoration projects, urbanization of watersheds, ferry wakes, and many other means. The most wide-ranging impact of human activity on the shape of shorelines is global climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions, which is accelerating the rate of sea level rise worldwide (OPC 2018). Sea level rise is likely to cause much more dramatic changes in the shape of shorelines than have been seen in recent centuries. The magnitude and pace of change will depend on the rate of sea level rise, existing shoreline conditions, and the ability of shorelines to adapt. 

New Method for Estimating Landslide Losses from Major Winter Storms in California and Application to the ARkStorm Scenario

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) | May 30th, 2014

ARkStorm is a statewide emergency planning scenario hypothesizing severe atmospheric river storms that transport huge amounts of moisture from the tropical Pacific to Cal

ARkStorm is a statewide emergency planning scenario hypothesizing severe atmospheric river storms that transport huge amounts of moisture from the tropical Pacific to California, where it falls as intense rain. The storm is projected to be similar to historic storms that have struck California in recent decades, but include extended periods of intense rainfall that approach the massive storms of 1861–1862 in total rainfall. A meteorological model for the ARkStorm has been developed from records of the 1969 and 1986 storms, both of which caused widespread landslides and severe damage in California. Estimating the numbers and impact of landslides from the ARkStorm requires models relating rainfall to the number and distribution of landslides and detailed records of the impact of landslides in past storms. Neither of these basic data sets exist. However, models that estimate the areas with the greatest susceptibility to landsliding do exist and can be combined with detailed maps of small areas showing the numbers of landslides triggered in individual storms. This study extrapolated from local landslide damage to private property in past storms by using a new statewide landslide susceptibility map. These methods may provide a framework for other landslide loss estimates, which can be greatly improved with additional data. Records of landslide losses to the state highway system are more complete than records of damage to private property; it was possible to assemble records for only the past 10 years. Even within these short records, the amount of damage to the state highway system appears to be correlated with rainfall. Projecting from these records, the amount of landslide damage to highways and other infrastructure from the ARkStorm can be estimated. Overall, it is estimated that the ARkStorm would trigger landslides that directly cause billions of dollars in damage.

New San Francisco Bay Contaminants Emerge

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | July 2nd, 2020

 In 2016, the RMP launched a novel investigation to detect new or unexpected contaminants in Bay waters, as well as treated sewage (or wastewater) discharged to the Bay.

 In 2016, the RMP launched a novel investigation to detect new or unexpected contaminants in Bay waters, as well as treated sewage (or wastewater) discharged to the Bay. This study used non-targeted analysis, a powerful tool that provides a broad, open-ended view of thousands of synthetic and naturally-derived chemicals simultaneously. We identified hundreds of contaminants, and the results have opened our eyes to urban stormwater runoff as an important pathway for emerging contaminants to enter the Bay. 

New Sources for California’s Water Supply

State of California | March 1st, 2016

The Assembly Select Committee on Water Consumption and Alternative Sources was established in February 2015 to examine the strategies California could take to improve wat

The Assembly Select Committee on Water Consumption and Alternative Sources was established in February 2015 to examine the strategies California could take to improve water conservation and expand the portfolio of water sources. Given that California rose to the challenge of conservation, the committee turned its attention to alternative water source strategies such as stormwater capture, ocean desalination and water recycling, holding specific hearings to discuss the latter two in greater detail. This report is the culmination of several hearings held across the state on issues of water use and opportunities for expanding water sources. It includes summaries of expert testimony at those hearings, including illustrative slides from their presentations, as well as a list of key findings and recommendations compiled by committee staff and approved by the Chair. These findings and recommendations were not voted on by members of the Select Committee and may not reflect the view of each Select Committee member. This report is meant to provide knowledge regarding California’s drought, climate change future, and viability of water sourcing strategies including stormwater capture, water recycling and desalination. This knowledge will be essential in adapting California’s water infrastructure to climate changes and devising the most effective and environmentally friendly approach to endure the next California drought.

New Stone Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan

New Stone Water District (NSWD) | December 23rd, 2019

This GSP covers about 4,200 acres in the northwestern area of the basin that is adjacent to the Chowchilla Bypass covering the New Stone Water District Groundwater Sustai

This GSP covers about 4,200 acres in the northwestern area of the basin that is adjacent to the Chowchilla Bypass covering the New Stone Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency. The NSWD GSA is coterminous with the New Stone Water District (NSWD or District) boundary. The District is predominantly agriculture and consists of two landowners. The New Stone Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency was created on December 22, 2016.