Sacramento River

CALFED Staff Report: Summary Review of Prior Delta Conveyance Reports

CALFED | April 24th, 2008

Over the past 40 years, state, federal, and local agencies, as well as academics have conducted numerous studies about the best way to move water through or around the De

Over the past 40 years, state, federal, and local agencies, as well as academics have conducted numerous studies about the best way to move water through or around the Delta. For this summary report, CALFED staff reviewed more than 100 reports — 30 of which specifically focused on various conveyance options—that dealt with Delta water conveyance and potential effects on water quality and ecosystem health and resilience. Based on a review of these reports, it appears that most focus on the amount of water than can be moved and for what cost, but little work has been done to evaluate the effects on the Delta environment or the impacts of climate change and sea level rise. We note, however, that several studies now underway are addressing these issues. General conclusions based on this review suggest: 1. The operational criteria of a conveyance system is critical to determining if it will meet the environmental, water quality, and water supply reliability needs of the state. 2. Based on the reports we reviewed, none of the conveyance options stand out as a clear choice capable of fully meeting all the performance standards laid out by the Task Force. Some conveyance options do well in some areas, but not in others; some conveyance options do moderately well across all areas. 3. Few of the existing reports include operational criteria or specifically integrate much of the new and relevant scientific data about the Delta ecosystem. 4. Cost estimates developed were for the conceptual designs for particular studies. Most of the reports did not include cost estimates for operation, maintenance and mitigation. Cost estimates presented here are not current and are not comparable among reports.

CalFed: Still Imperiled, Still Important

Little Hoover Commission | November 17th, 2005

The Little Hoover Commission on Thursday recommended overhauling how state and federal agencies are managing the massive, multibillion-dollar effort to restore the Bay-De

The Little Hoover Commission on Thursday recommended overhauling how state and federal agencies are managing the massive, multibillion-dollar effort to restore the Bay-Delta estuary. The Commission’s review affirmed the importance of the CALFED Bay-Delta program and the need to fundamentally change how the multi-agency effort is governed. The Commission recommended dissolving the Bay-Delta Authority, which was created in 2003, and creating a stronger management structure that could be held accountable for achieving the program’s four objectives: improving water supply reliability, levee stability, water quality and the ecosystem of the vast, yet fragile Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Delta supplies water to 22 million Californians, irrigates 5 million acres of farmland and is home to 750 wildlife species. Through CALFED, 24 state and federal agencies were committed to working cooperatively and relying on science and public involvement to improve conditions in the Bay-Delta. But after five years and $3 billion, the Governor and the Legislature have questioned the progress and the ability of the Bay-Delta Authority to lead the effort. The Commission’s review was requested by Governor Schwarzenegger as part of an effort to revitalize CALFED. The Commission concluded that the current structure diffuses authority and fragments responsibility and lacks the focused leadership needed to get adversarial stakeholders and reluctant government agencies to cooperate. “Because of a faulty design, the Bay-Delta Authority cannot effectively coordinate activities, push agencies to perform, or provide rigorous oversight. It is unable to control or cajole,” said Michael E. Alpert, chairman of the Little Hoover Commission. The Commission found that growing disagreements about CALFED’s mission and the role of the Bay-Delta Authority are jeopardizing the critical water supply and restoration effort. The Commission recommended recreating a policy group of public officials, co-chaired by the U.S. Secretary of Interior and the California Secretary of Resources. It recommended deploying performance management techniques to improve progress toward specific goals. And it recommended refinements to the program’s use of a lead scientist and an independent science board to improve decision-making. “The most important factor in CALFED’s success will be leadership,” Alpert said. “One lesson of the last five years is that CALFED will require an amount of political capital and leadership that can only flow from the institution of the Governor.” The Commission’s report includes recommendations for reforming the governance structure of the CALFED program.

California Adds 'Delta Tunnel' to List of Possible Water Supply Solutions

New York Times | August 7th, 2009

California officials are studying whether a 35-mile tunnel under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta might help solve some of the state's water supply problems. Teresa

California officials are studying whether a 35-mile tunnel under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta might help solve some of the state's water supply problems. Teresa Engstrom, chief of the delta engineering branch at the California Department of Water Resources, confirmed that the agency is conducting feasibility studies on an "all tunnel" option that would route water under the Bay Delta from rivers and reservoirs to the north of Sacramento to farms in the south.

California Department of Water Plan 2023: Navigating Climate Challenges with Equity and Resilience

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | September 20th, 2023

The California Water Plan (Water Plan), updated every five years, is the State’s strategic plan for sustainably and equitably managing, developing, and stewarding water

The California Water Plan (Water Plan), updated every five years, is the State’s strategic plan for sustainably and equitably managing, developing, and stewarding water resources. Required by Water Code Section 10005, the plan presents the status and trends of California’s water-dependent natural resources; water supplies; and agricultural, urban, and environmental water demands for a range of plausible future scenarios.

California Fish and Game, Volume 15

California Fish and Game Commission | January 1st, 1929

California Fish and Game, Volume 2

California Fish and Game Commission | January 31st, 1916

California Fish and Game, Volume 34

California Fish and Game Commission | April 30th, 1948

California Fish and Game, Volume 37

California Department of Fish and Wildlife | October 1st, 1951

California Fish and Game, Volume 38

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | October 1st, 1952

California Fish and Game, Volume 39

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | April 2nd, 1953