Water management in mediterranean river basins: a comparison of management frameworks, physical impacts, and ecological responses

Hydrobiologia (Springer) | September 11th, 2012

Rivers in mediterranean climates have been extensively modified by water management infrastructure and practices, yet patterns of development and consequent effec

Rivers in mediterranean climates have been extensively modified by water management infrastructure and practices, yet patterns of development and consequent effects on freshwater ecosystems have not been compared across multiple regions. To evaluate the influence of water management on mediterranean-climate rivers, we compare the historic progression of management policies, institutions, and ecosystem impacts in the Sacramento River (California, USA), Ebro River (Spain), and Biobío River (Chile) basins. There are broad similarities in patterns of ecosystem alterations related to the extensive development of dams and water management infrastructure in the three study basins. Flow regimes have been altered by the reduction of winter peak flows and increased summer baseflows. There are also common patterns of disturbance from sediment transport alteration, water quality degradation, and declines in freshwater biodiversity. Current approaches are inadequate for addressing the formidable water management challenges in California, Spain, and Chile, yet the dramatic evolution of water policies and institutions over the past 150 years suggests that further adaptation is possible. Advances toward integrated and sustainable water management models are likely to occur through incremental change, driven by growing awareness of climate change effects and public demands for water-use efficiency and improved environmental quality.  

Water Partnerships between Cities and Farms in Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | October 29th, 2020

The San Joaquin Valley and urban Southern California are worlds apart in many ways. Yet each face growing water challenges and a shared interest in ensuring reliable, aff

The San Joaquin Valley and urban Southern California are worlds apart in many ways. Yet each face growing water challenges and a shared interest in ensuring reliable, affordable water supplies to safeguard their people and economies. Both regions’ water futures could be more secure if they take advantage of shared water infrastructure to jointly develop and manage some water supplies.  Increasing climate volatility is heightening concerns about droughts of the future. And two major shifts in California’s water landscape have generated new opportunities for collaboration between urban and agricultural interests. For urban areas, significant declines in water demand have reduced pressure on supplies during normal and wet years for many agencies, making reliability for future droughts the primary concern. For the overdrafted San Joaquin Valley, the requirement to manage groundwater sustainably has heightened interest in expanding water supplies and underground storage.  Partnerships between Southern California cities and San Joaquin Valley farms could help alleviate groundwater overdraft in the valley while building drought resilience in Southern California. More flexible supplies can help agencies adapt to changing conditions. By coordinating the location of infrastructure investments, agencies can use partnerships to bring the water where and when it is most needed, at least cost.  This report explores a variety of solutions that could benefit both regions. For the San Joaquin Valley, we look for ways to augment water supplies to ease the transition to groundwater sustainability, while for Southern California we explore options that would increase cities’ ability to deal effectively with extended droughts. By diversifying water supplies, building connections to share water more flexibly, and preparing for the extreme events to come, such partnerships would support Governor Newsom’s Water Resilience Portfolio, and pave the way for a shared effort to make the state’s water system more resilient to a changing climate. 

Water Power in California: The factors on which it depends, and the extent to which it might be utilized

Scientific American | April 26th, 1919

Water Quality Assessment of the Condition of California Coastal Waters and Wadeable Streams: Clean Water Act Section 305b Report 2006

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | July 25th, 2006

One of the first steps in managing our environmental resources is to determine their current condition by answering the key question, “What is the overall condition of

One of the first steps in managing our environmental resources is to determine their current condition by answering the key question, “What is the overall condition of California’s surface waters?” Often-raised questions relating to the condition of our waters include, “Is the water safe to drink?” “Are the waters safe to swim?” “Are the fish safe to eat?” “Is aquatic life healthy?” The condition assessments presented in this report focus on two waterbody types: coastal bays and estuaries and wadeable perennial streams. The assessments in this report focus on the question “Is aquatic life healthy?” The “aquatic life” use designation in California’s water quality control plans refers to the beneficial uses of waters that support either warm-water or cold-water ecosystems, including fish, wildlife, invertebrates, vegetation, and other components of aquatic ecosystems. While historical assessments of water quality have primarily focused on describing chemical water quality, this report includes assessments based on biological indicators when available. This report includes assessments of the condition of coastal bays and estuaries and wadeable perennial streams statewide based on data collected through the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). These statewide assessments represent the state’s initial attempt to make broad statistical estimates of the conditions of these waterbody types. It establishes baselines against which to compare future assessments. All the statewide assessments based on Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program datasets have known levels of certainty. These confidence intervals are not included in this report but are available in the technical reports cited. The statewide assessments rely on data from a survey design that generates statistically defensible, unbiased assessments of the conditions of these waterbody types. As such, they did not specifically focus on areas of high impact. Other sampling, which has targeted such areas have shown toxicity and elevated chemical levels in some areas. In addition, only a limited set of indicators were used for the assessments. These indicators are specified in each section. The federal Clean Water Act’s Section 305b requires each state to report on the quality condition of its waters. The California State Water Board submits its water quality condition assessment report biennially to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The reports submitted by states serve as the basis for U.S. EPA’s National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress. The Inventory Report is the primary report for the public about the condition of the nation’s waters. The report is also used to inform water quality management decisions, including the allocation of certain Clean Water Act funds among states. However, key reviews of national and state monitoring and assessment efforts suggest that the National Water Quality Inventory Report does not accurately portray water quality conditions, that the monitoring done by states does not always allow for valid assessments of water quality condition in unmonitored waters, and that a consistent approach to monitoring and data collection is needed to support core water programs (U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2000; National Research Council, 2001).  As a result, the information provided on the status and trends of waters at statewide and at national scales may be inadequate to support decision making. The water quality condition assessment reports submitted thus far by California have been based on a regional approach to reporting. The approach corresponds to the structure of the nine California Regional Water Boards and provides essential information for specific waterbodies. However, the assessments cannot be successfully integrated into an accurate statewide report because regions use a variety of assessment approaches and do not always apply criteria consistently. Also, due to limited resources, monitoring has generally focused on problem identification. Clean waters were less likely to be targeted for monitoring, and assessments were based on data with a bias towards sites that were likely sampled due to suspected problems. Furthermore, assessments could not be extrapolated to unmonitored waterbodies or those with insufficient data. That there is no current way to develop a valid national picture of water quality condition speaks both to the monitoring and assessment challenges faced by states as well as the need for improved assessment tools. The California Water Boards have actively taken steps to meet these challenges. The Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program’s (SWAMP) comprehensive monitoring and assessment strategy describes some of these steps (A comprehensive monitoring and assessment strategy to protect and restore California’s water quality.  Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. 2005. [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/swamp/reports.html]). As part of the strategy, SWAMP has partnered with U.S. EPA on large-scale monitoring efforts through the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program October 2006 Clean Water Act Section 305b Report 2006: California Water Quality Condition Assessment Report effort relies on a statistical monitoring approach that allows assessments of the condition of waters to be extrapolated to unmonitored areas. For 2006, U.S. EPA has agreed that California can use a different format to submit and meet its Clean Water Act Section 305b reporting requirements. This report would include assessments based on an evaluation of California data collected under U.S. EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. The assessments apply to two waterbody types: (1) coastal bays and estuaries and (2) wadeable perennial streams. “Wadeable” streams are streams, creeks, and small rivers that are shallow enough to sample without boats. The assessments focus on one beneficial use (aquatic life use) and are based on a limited suite of key indicators. Specifically, the report had to include sections summarizing: • Statewide assessments of coastal bays and estuaries based on California data collected as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Coastal Waters. • Statewide assessments of wadeable perennial streams based on aquatic invertebrate data collected in California as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Inland Surface Waters. • Assessments of northern and southern coastal California’s wadeable perennial streams based on aquatic invertebrate data collected in these areas as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Inland Surface Waters. When available, assessments from large-scale regional monitoring efforts such as the Regional Monitoring Program for San Francisco Bay, the Central Coast Long-Term Environmental Assessment Network, the Southern California Bight Project, and the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program have been included. Specifically, more detailed assessments of the San Francisco Bay, the Central Coast, and the Southern California Bight areas are included as part of the coastal waters assessment. More detailed assessments of the Santa Clara River Watershed in Southern California and waters in the Central Coast region are included as part of the wadeable perennial streams assessment. Brief summaries of the Regional Water Boards’ surface water ambient monitoring programs are included in the final section of this report.

Water Quality Assessment of the State Water Project, 1998-99

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | August 10th, 2000

This report describes water quality in the State Water Project during 1998 and 1999. The Executive Summary covers important drinking water parameters such as salinity and

This report describes water quality in the State Water Project during 1998 and 1999. The Executive Summary covers important drinking water parameters such as salinity and trihalomethane precursors. The rest of the report assesses all parameters including metals and pesticides.

Water Quality Challenges in the San Francisco Bay/ Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary: EPA’s Action Plan

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | August 22nd, 2012

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed this Action Plan after assessing the effectiveness of current regulatory mechanisms designed to protect water qua

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed this Action Plan after assessing the effectiveness of current regulatory mechanisms designed to protect water quality in the San Francisco Bay Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay Delta Estuary) and its tributaries. EPA’s assessment concludes that Clean Water Act (CWA) programs currently are not adequately protecting aquatic resources of the Bay Delta Estuary. In this document, EPA recommends actions to restore water quality for aquatic species protection using existing EPA authorities and resources, as well as actions EPA believes are important and appropriate for the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). EPA is one of more than 25 state and federal governmental agencies with responsibilities in the Bay Delta Estuary. EPA’s major statutory mission in the Estuary is to implement the CWA. EPA has delegated many CWA program authorities to the State Water Board while providing financial support,1 technical assistance, and oversight (including, in some cases, review and approval of State actions). Much of EPA's work in this Action Plan (as well as elsewhere in California) is done in support of and in partnership with the State. For example, water quality standards, which define water quality goals for our waterbodies, are typically developed and adopted by the State with EPA assistance, review, and ultimately, approval or disapproval. In the Bay Delta Estuary, EPA focuses on assuring that the many designated uses of the Estuary’s aquatic resources are protected. EPA emphasizes the CWA goals of maintaining and improving water quality – the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the water – to ensure the Bay Delta Estuary can function as a vibrant, healthy estuary. About 90 species of fish are found in the Delta. The Delta’s channels serve as a migratory route and nursery area for Chinook salmon, striped bass, white and green sturgeon, American shad, and steelhead trout. These anadromous fish spend most of their adult lives either in the lower bays of the Estuary or in the ocean. Resident fish in the Estuary include delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, catfish, largemouth bass, black bass, crappie, and bluegill. All Bay Delta Estuary waters are impaired by one or more contaminants. In addition, the reduction in the quantity and quality of estuarine habitat limits the Estuary’s ability to support aquatic species. EPA’s Action Plan describes a suite of activities to: 1. Strengthen water quality standards to protect estuarine habitat 2. Advance regional water quality monitoring and assessment 3. Accelerate water quality restoration through Total Maximum Daily Loads 4. Strengthen selenium water quality criteria 5. Prevent pesticide pollution 6. Restore aquatic habitats while managing methylmercury 7. Support the Bay Delta Conservation Plan Collectively, these activities will contribute to the restoration of the Bay Delta Estuary. Even if they are all successfully implemented, however, they are not sufficient to resolve the complex problems that have stressed the ecosystem to the point of collapse. Any solution to the ecological problems of the Bay Delta Estuary must be multi-faceted, including providing sufficient flows, physical habitat which is sufficiently large, connected, diverse, and self-sustaining, as well as a reduction of many types of stressors, such as contaminants, invasive species, and predation.

Water Quality Conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun and San Pablo Bays during 2009

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 28th, 2010

This report summarizes the results of water quality monitoring and special  studies conducted by the Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) within the Sacramento-San Joa

This report summarizes the results of water quality monitoring and special  studies conducted by the Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) and Suisun and San Pablo bays (the upper San Francisco estuary) during calendar year 2009. This monitoring is mandated by Water Right Decision 1641 (D-1641) and this report is being submitted to fulfill the reporting requirements of this decision. The EMP monitored water quality using a protocol implemented in 1996. Under this monitoring protocol, 13 sampling sites—2 of which were added after 1996—representing 8 regions of the upper San Francisco estuary (estuary) were monitored for 15 physical and chemical water quality parameters. The results gathered from the sampling of these 15 parameters are described in this report. Parameters such as water temperature, Secchi disk depth, dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, specific conductance, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, orthophosphate, and volatile suspended solids were within their historical range. Measured parameters exhibited seasonal variation as well as changes in response to significant rainfall events and in flow rates. In addition to monitoring physical and chemical water quality parameters, biological sampling was conducted to monitor the productivity and community composition of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthic communities.

Water Quality Conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta during 1995

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | August 1st, 1999

Water year 1995 was a wet year, ending an eight-year period of predominantly dry and critically dry years.  After a relatively dry fall, January and March precipitation

Water year 1995 was a wet year, ending an eight-year period of predominantly dry and critically dry years.  After a relatively dry fall, January and March precipitation was heavy and produced flooding in the Central Valley.  By May 1, precipitation was 165% of average, snowpack water content was 215% af average, seasonal runoff was 170% of average, and reservoir storage was 110% of average. In 1995, the Net Delta Outflow Index (NDOI) was used to estimate Delta outflow, and the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Unimpaired Runoff indices were used to determine water year type for 1995.  Using these indices, water year 1995 was officially classified as wet on May 1, 1995.  All standards, including those in Water Right Decision 1485, as amended by the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan, were met in 1995. The entire 1995 calendar year was characterized by excess conditions, and both State Water Project and Central Valley Project water requirements were met as well as in-Delta consumptive uses.  Delta outflows were high throughout the year, and the calculated average monthly flows exceeded 80,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) during the peak outflow period (January through May), and 3,000 cfs during the minimum outflow period (July through November).

Water Quality Control Plan for Salinity (draft)

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | October 15th, 1988

Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) | March 1st, 2016

The objective of this Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin, or Basin Plan, is to show how the quality of the surface and ground waters in the Central

The objective of this Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin, or Basin Plan, is to show how the quality of the surface and ground waters in the Central Coast Region should be managed to provide the highest water quality reasonably possible. Water uses and water benefits vary. Water quality is an important factor in determining use and benefit. For example, drinking water has to be of higher quality than the water used to irrigate pastures. Both are legitimate uses, but the quality requirements for irrigation are different from those for domestic use. The plan recognizes such variations. This Basin Plan lists the various water uses (Beneficial Uses, Chapter Two). Second, it describes the water quality which must be maintained to allow those uses (Water Quality Objectives, Chapter Three). Federal terminology is somewhat different, in that beneficial uses and water quality objectives are combined and the combination is called Water Quality Standards. Chapter Four, the Implementation Plan, then describes the programs, projects, and other actions which are necessary to achieve the standards established in this plan. Chapter Five, Plans and Policies, summarizes State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) plans and policies to protect water quality. Chapter Six describes statewide surveillance and monitoring programs as well as regional surveillance and monitoring programs. The Regional Board implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements to individuals, communities, or businesses whose waste discharges can affect water quality. These requirements can be either State Waste Discharge Requirements for discharges to land, or federally delegated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharges to surface water. Methods of treatment are not specified. When such discharges are managed so that: 1) they meet these requirements; 2) water quality objectives are met; and, 3) beneficial uses are protected, water quality is controlled. The Basin Plan is also implemented by encouraging water users to improve the quality of their water supplies, particularly where the wastewater they discharge is likely to be reused. Public works or other projects which can affect water quality are reviewed and their impacts identified. Proposals which implement or help achieve the goals of the Basin Plan are supported; the Regional Board makes water quality control recommendations for other projects. To check for any updates or amendments since this document was loaded into the library, please visit the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board's basin plan page.