Sacramento River

Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan (Bay Delta Plan)

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | December 13th, 2006

"Bay Delta Plan" is short for the State Water Resources Control Board's (State Water Board) San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary Water Quality Control P

"Bay Delta Plan" is short for the State Water Resources Control Board's (State Water Board) San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary Water Quality Control Plan. The Bay-Delta Plan identifies the beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta, water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of those beneficial uses, and a program of implementation for achieving the objectives. The Bay-Delta Plan, when implemented, can determine the amount and timing of water entering and moving through the Delta. The State Water Board holds dual responsibilities of allocating surface water rights and protecting water quality. The State Water Board allocates water through an administrative system that is intended to maximize the beneficial uses of water while protecting the public trust, serving the public interest, and preventing the waste and unreasonable use or method of diversion of water. While most water quality control planning is done by the Regional Water Boards, the State Water Board has authority to adopt statewide water quality control plans. The State Water Board adopts the Bay-Delta Plan because of the Delta's importance as a major source of water supply for the state. The Bay-Delta Plan protects water quality in the region and includes water quality objectives to protect fish and wildlife beneficial uses through inflows to the Delta from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and Delta outflows, in addition to objectives for salinity to protect agricultural beneficial uses. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is in the process of a phased review and update of the 2006 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta) (referred to as the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan). To learn more about the Bay-Delta Plan, click here. In 2009, the State Water Board began the process of reviewing and likely revising the 2006 Bay Delta Plan.  At the time of the archiving of this document, that update process still continues.  For the latest information, click here to visit the State Water Resources Control Board page for the Bay-Delta Plan Update.. RELATED DOCUMENT: Water Rights Decision 1641, the document that implements the 1995 Bay Delta Plan and is still in force.

Before the Well Runs Dry: Improving the Linkage Between Groundwater and Land Use Planning

Stanford University | April 17th, 2014

There is no comprehensive regulation of groundwater use in the state of California,* and the right to withdraw groundwater is based on surface land ownership. This create

There is no comprehensive regulation of groundwater use in the state of California,* and the right to withdraw groundwater is based on surface land ownership. This creates a direct linkage between every land use that requires water and the groundwater underneath that land. Because so many aspects of groundwater use are not regulated by the state, local governments’ land use decisions become a key driver of demands on groundwater. Nonetheless, land use decisions and planning are not well coordinated with groundwater management. Understanding how land use decisions affect groundwater resources has become increasingly important in recent years, as groundwater provides approximately 30 percent of California’s water supply in average years and 40 percent of the supply in dry years. In some places, the reliance on groundwater during droughts is much higher, due to reduced supplies of surface water. Growth from housing and irrigated agriculture, among other demands, have led to chronic overdraft and declining groundwater elevations in many communities that rely heavily on groundwater. To address this problem, Water in the West convened groundwater managers, land use planners, water lawyers, consultants and academics at Stanford University for an Uncommon Dialogue in the fall of 2013. Its aim was to discuss a growing consensus that more effective integration of land use planning and groundwater management is an essential component of preserving groundwater aquifers for the future, and to share possible means of accomplishing this in California. This report, shaped in part by the Dialogue, provides the background and regulatory context for land use planning and groundwater management in California, shares case studies that highlight the intersection of groundwater and land use, and makes specific recommendations to improve the linkage between land use decisions and groundwater management in the state. *The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was signed into law five months after this was published. 

Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds Landscape Assessment

United Nations (UN) | August 3rd, 2020

This landscape assessment is the outcome of Phase 1 of a tri-phased project and was designed to inform the path forward for engaging the private sector to invest in natu

This landscape assessment is the outcome of Phase 1 of a tri-phased project and was designed to inform the path forward for engaging the private sector to invest in nature-based solutions (NBS). A literature review was undertaken to understand the contemporary thinking around NBS and identify key opportunities and challenges faced by decision makers, practitioners and researchers. Interviews conducted with representatives of businesses, civil society and academia who have already implemented NBS projects or are looking to do so yielded qualitative responses to complement or contrast with the findings from the literature review.

Benefit-Cost Analysis of The California WaterFix

University of the Pacific, Center for Business and Policy Research | August 17th, 2016

This benefit - cost analysis of the California Water Fix was prepared by Dr. Jeffrey Micheal with the University of the Pacific Center for Business and Policy Research; D

This benefit - cost analysis of the California Water Fix was prepared by Dr. Jeffrey Micheal with the University of the Pacific Center for Business and Policy Research; Dr. Michael is an opponent of the project. He writes, "This analysis is based on data and assumptions in the revised environmental documents produced by DWR to support the proposal’s environmental review. The results show the WaterFix costs are four times larger than its benefits, and thus the project is not is not economically justified."

Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Delta Conveyance Project

Berkeley Research Group (BRG) | May 16th, 2024

This report presents the results of a benefit-cost analysis for the Delta Conveyance Project (DCP), a plan to modernize the State Water Project (SWP)’s conveyance infra

This report presents the results of a benefit-cost analysis for the Delta Conveyance Project (DCP), a plan to modernize the State Water Project (SWP)’s conveyance infrastructure in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta). The SWP plays a crucial role in supplying water resources to 27 million Californians. Businesses in the area served by the SWP produce $2.3 trillion in goods and services annually, making it the world’s eighth-largest economy. The SWP delivers an average of 2.56 million acre-feet of water annually to urban and agricultural customers in the Bay Area, Central Valley, Central Coast, and Southern California. However, by 2070, climate change and sea-level rise are expected to reduce SWP deliveries by approximately 22%, or 546 thousand acre-feet per year (TAF/yr). In addition, the SWP faces an ongoing risk of service disruptions following seismic events near the Delta; these events could cause outages and reduce the quality of water exports from the SWP south of the Delta.

Biennial Report of the Fish and Game Commission of California 1924-26

California Fish and Game Commission | June 30th, 1926

Bifenthrin, a ubiquitous contaminant, impairs the development and behavior of the threatened Longfin Smelt during early life stages

American Chemical Society (ACS) | June 23rd, 2023

The Longfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) population in the San Franscisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta) has declined to ∼1% of its pre-1980s abundance

The Longfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) population in the San Franscisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta) has declined to ∼1% of its pre-1980s abundance and, as a result, is listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. The reasons for this decline are multiple and complex, including the impacts of contaminants. Because the spawning and rearing seasons of Longfin Smelt coincide with the rainy season, during which concentrations of contaminants increase due to runoff, we hypothesized that early life stages may be particularly affected by those contaminants. Bifenthrin, a pyrethroid insecticide commonly used in agricultural and urban sectors, is of concern. Concentrations measured in the Bay-Delta have been shown to disrupt the behavior, development, and endocrine system of other fish species. The objective of the present work was to assess the impact of bifenthrin on the early developmental stages of Longfin Smelt. For this, embryos were exposed to 2, 10, 100, and 500 ng/L bifenthrin from fertilization to hatch, and larvae were exposed to 2, 10, and 100 ng/L bifenthrin from one day before to 3 days post-hatch. We assessed effects on size at hatch, yolk sac volume, locomotory behavior, and upper thermal susceptibility (via cardiac endpoints). Exposure to these environmentally relevant concentrations of bifenthrin did not significantly affect the cardiac function of larval Longfin Smelt; however, exposures altered their behavior and resulted in smaller hatchlings with reduced yolk sac volumes. This study shows that bifenthrin affects the fitness-determinant traits of Longfin Smelt early life stages and could contribute to the observed population decline.

Big Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Lassen and Modoc Counties Groundwater Sustainability Agencies | December 8th, 2021

The Big Valley Groundwater Basin (BVGB, Basin, or Big Valley) lies on the border of Modoc and Lassen counties in one of the most remote and untouched areas of California.

The Big Valley Groundwater Basin (BVGB, Basin, or Big Valley) lies on the border of Modoc and Lassen counties in one of the most remote and untouched areas of California. The sparsely populated Big Valley has a rich biodiversity of wildlife and native species who live, feed and raise young on the irrigated lands throughout the Basin. The snow-fed high desert streams entering the Basin have seasonal hydrographs with natural periods of reduced flows or complete cessation of flows late in the summer season. The Pit River is the largest stream and is so named because of the practice, employed by the Achumawi and other Native American bands that are now part of the Pit River Tribe, of digging pits in the river channel when it went dry to expose water and trap game that came to water at the river. Farming and ranching in Big Valley date back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when families immigrated to Big Valley and made use of the existing water resources. A large amount of the land in the Basin is still owned and farmed by the families who homesteaded here. Historically, agriculture was complemented by a robust timber industry as a key component of the economy for Big Valley, which supported four lumber mills. Due to regulations and policies imposed by state and federal governments, the timber industry has been diminished over time and subsequently caused a great economic hardship to the Big Valley communities. Stakeholders realize that the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) will unfortunately cause a similar decline to agriculture. The change in land management has transformed once thriving communities in the Basin to “disadvantaged” and “severely disadvantaged” communities. Viable agriculture is of paramount importance to the residents of Big Valley because it supports the local economy and unique character of the community. As required by SGMA, stakeholders have developed a sustainability goal: The sustainability goal for the Big Valley Groundwater Basin is to maintain a locally governed, economically feasible, sustainable groundwater basin and surrounding watershed for existing and future legal beneficial uses with a concentration on agriculture. Sustainable management will be conducted in context with the unique culture of the basin, character of the community, quality of life of the Big Valley residents, and the vested right of agricultural pursuits through the continued use of groundwater and surface water. Lassen and Modoc counties are fulfilling their unfunded, mandated roles as Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to develop this Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) after exhausting its administrative challenges to the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR’s) determination that Big Valley qualifies as a medium-priority basin. Both counties are disadvantaged, have declining populations, and have no ability to cover the costs of GSP development and implementation.

Biological opinion and conference opinion on the long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | June 4th, 2009

Biological opinion for the California Water Fix (National Marine Fisheries Service)

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | June 16th, 2017

Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, the Biological Opinion (Opinion) concludes that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued e

Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, the Biological Opinion (Opinion) concludes that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed: • Endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), • Threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha), • Threatened Central Valley steelhead ( 0. my kiss), • Threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), and • Endangered Southern Resident killer whales ( Orcinus area). NMFS concludes that the Project is not likely to destroy or adversely modify the designated critical habitats of: • Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, • Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, • Central Valley steelhead, and • Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon. Southern Resident killer whales critical habitat is outside of the action area. As required by section 7 of the ESA, for the above species, NMFS has included an incidental take statement for activities within the proposed Project that do not require further analysis. The incidental take statement describes reasonable and prudent measures NMFS considers necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take associated with these activities. The take statement also sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions, including monitoring and reporting requirements, that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) as the Federal action agency, must comply with to carry out the reasonable and prudent measures. Incidental take from activities that meet these terms and conditions will be exempt from the ESA’s prohibition against the take of listed species. The Project for this consultation is a “mixed programmatic action” because it approves some actions that are not subject to further section 7 consultation as well as provides programmatic review of future actions that would be authorized, at a later time. For actions that are expected to be developed in the future (mitigation/restoration, monitoring, adaptive management), take of listed species would not occur until those future actions were authorized. For other actions (construction and operations), NMFS is providing an incidental take statement with this Opinion. The enclosed Opinion is based on information provided in the Reclamation’s transmittal letter and biological assessment, correspondence and discussions between NMFS, Reclamation, and California Department of Water Resources staff, and consultants; a final proposed action issued on June 2, 2017; comments received from Reclamation; peer review reports from the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Science Program; and an extensive literature review completed by NMFS staff. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the NMFS California Central Valley Office. NMFS also concurs with Reclamation’s conclusion that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect threatened Central California Coast steelhead (O. mykiss), endangered Central California Coast coho salmon (O. kisutch), or the designated critical habitat for Central California Coast steelhead. Designated critical habitat for Central California Coast coho salmon is not included in the action area. NMFS reviewed the likely effects of the proposed action on essential fish habitat (EFH), pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)), and concluded that the Project would adversely affect the EFH of Pacific Coast salmon, Coastal Pelagic species, and Pacific Coast Groundfish in the action area. We have included these EFH consultation results in Section 3 of this document. The EFH consultation itself includes Conservation Recommendations specific to the adverse effects to EFH identified during our review. Reclamation has a statutory requirement under section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA to submit a detailed written response to NMFS within 30 days of receipt of these EFH conservation recommendations, and 10 days in advance of any final approval of the action if the response is inconsistent with any of NMFS’ EFH Conservation Recommendations. The written response must include a description of measures adopted by Reclamation for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating the impact of the Project on EFH (50 CFR § 600.920(k)). If unable to complete a final response within 30 days, Reclamation should provide an interim written response within 30 days before submitting its final response. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with our recommendations, Reclamation must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the Project and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate (also referred to by NMFS as measures that "offset") such effects.