San Joaquin River

Goodbye to “Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes

American Fisheries Society (AFS) | July 21st, 2021

While sometimes difficult to admit, perspectives of European and white males have overwhelmingly dominated fisheries science and management in the USA. This dynamic is ex

While sometimes difficult to admit, perspectives of European and white males have overwhelmingly dominated fisheries science and management in the USA. This dynamic is exemplified by bias against “rough fish”—a pejorative ascribing low-to-zero value for countless native fishes. One product of this bias is that biologists have ironically worked against conservation of diverse fishes for over a century, and these problems persist today. Nearly all U.S. states retain bag limits and other policies that are regressive and encourage overfishing and decline of native species. Multiple lines of evidence point towards the need for a paradigm shift. These include: (1) native species deliver critical ecosystem services; (2) little demonstration that native fish removals deliver intended benefits; (3) many native fishes are long-lived and vulnerable to overfishing and decline; and (4) fisher values and demographics shifting towards native fish conservation. Overall, existing native fish policies are unacceptable and run counter to the public trust doctrine where government agencies manage natural resources for public use. We encourage agencies to revisit their policies regarding native fishes and provide suggestions for developing more holistic, protective, and inclusive conservation policy.

Governing Nature: Bambi Law in a Wall-E World

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) | January 28th, 2021

Humanity has disrupted many of the fundamental processes that shape nature worldwide. Virtually no places remain unchanged. Many ecosystems have moved far from their hist

Humanity has disrupted many of the fundamental processes that shape nature worldwide. Virtually no places remain unchanged. Many ecosystems have moved far from their historic conditions and no longer support native species or traditional human uses. In the Anthropocene, a new geologic era dominated by the human impact on Earth, these problems will continue to get worse. In response, humans are intervening in ecosystems at a massive scale. This Article argues that, even as humanity engages in an unprecedented level of ecosystem management, existing environmental governance structures are ill suited to manage this new nature. Ecologists who focus on restoring ecosystems have begun to abandon efforts to recreate idealized historical ecosystems, recognizing that such efforts will fail. Instead, they embrace new approaches that acknowledge continuing human impacts and seek to shape impacted habitats in a way that benefits both human and other life. This Article examines the new ecological approaches, using their migration of purpose and approach to illuminate ecosystem management in the Anthropocene and the new obligations it places on environmental law. To sharpen this focus, the Article considers three case studies of managed ecosystems, detailing the extent to which humans are controlling nature. The case studies suggest that the existing literature seriously underestimates the magnitude of the questions society will soon face. The Article concludes that although we face the daunting prospect of reshaping the very fabric of nature, we lack the governance structures to decide what shape it should take. Society will need environmental law governance that can answer fundamental questions about humanity’s role in managing nature at all scales. This Article proposes several starting principles to encourage legal scholars to address this need.

Governor's Commission to Review California Water Rights Law Summary Final Report

State of California | December 1st, 1978

Grand Challenges to Delta Science: Planning for Science in a Dynamic System (Draft)

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | May 23rd, 2024

The Delta Science Program is in the process of updating the Delta Science Plan for the third iteration. The Delta Science Plan is a collaboratively developed plan, stipul

The Delta Science Program is in the process of updating the Delta Science Plan for the third iteration. The Delta Science Plan is a collaboratively developed plan, stipulated in the Delta Plan, that aims to provide the vision, principles, and approaches for coordinating Delta science actors and communicating the outcomes of science activities and their management implications to decision-makers.

Grassland Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Grassland Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GGSA) | January 17th, 2020

*Cover gives draft date of December but consulting engineer signature is for 1/17/2020

*Cover gives draft date of December but consulting engineer signature is for 1/17/2020

Grassland Groundwater Sustainability Agency Revised Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Grassland Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GGSA) | July 8th, 2022

This GSP, including the Common Chapter, has been revised (changes are shown in Appendix G) to address items of concern raised by DWR in its initial “Incomplete” Deter

This GSP, including the Common Chapter, has been revised (changes are shown in Appendix G) to address items of concern raised by DWR in its initial “Incomplete” Determination Letter dated January 21, 2022. Every effort was made to ensure that this revised GSP and the revised Common Chapter are consistent. In the event of an inconsistency, the revised Common Chapter controls. The Grassland Plan Area will continue to be sustainable by maintaining the historically balanced groundwater system in order to avoid causing significant and unreasonable undesirable impacts to beneficial users of groundwater as they relate to the six sustainability indicators. The Plan Area participants are committed to continued coordination with neighboring GSP areas and neighboring subbasins in order to aid in the localized and statewide groundwater sustainability goals as defined by each GSP and Subbasin. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7

Gravelley Ford Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Gravelly Ford Water District (GFWD) | August 12th, 2019

Gravelly Ford Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Gravelly Ford Water District (GFWD) | March 19th, 2023

In 2022, the Technical representatives for the four GSPs representing the seven GSAs in the Madera Basin started meeting to revise the four GSP Plans to resolve deficienc

In 2022, the Technical representatives for the four GSPs representing the seven GSAs in the Madera Basin started meeting to revise the four GSP Plans to resolve deficiencies identified by the DWR in their review of the four GSP plans as stated in the September 2022 Incomplete determination letter. During the period from September 2022 through March 2023 the group also had meetings with DWR staff to establish direction on the recommendations in the DWR Incomplete letter. This Incomplete letter established a 180-day period to provide a revised GSP to address the deficiencies. The Technical group developed a corrective action plan to address the items identified by DWR staff in the Incomplete letter to address the noted deficiencies. During the last quarter of 2022 and the first quarter of 2023 the four GSPs revised their individual plans to coordinate approaches and methodologies that would provide similar language and approach across the Madera Subbasin, those items being: • Resolve the potential deficiencies identified by DWR in their September 2022 incomplete determination letter, and discussed during five DWR consultation meetings between November 2022 and January 2023; • Summarize the progressive implementation actions taken by the GSAs since submission of the GSP in January 2020; • Recognize the Madera Subbasin GSAs’ clear and formal commitment to fund and implement a Domestic Well Mitigation Program beginning no later than January 1, 2024, including the execution of a memorandum of understanding (MOU); and • Reaffirm their commitment to implementing the GSP and achieving sustainable groundwater conditions by 2040.

Gravelly Ford Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Gravelly Ford Water District (GFWD) | June 28th, 2022

This Plan is for the Gravelly Ford Groundwater Sustainability Area, one of seven components of the Madera Subbasin. It encompasses approximately 8,500 acres; its boundari

This Plan is for the Gravelly Ford Groundwater Sustainability Area, one of seven components of the Madera Subbasin. It encompasses approximately 8,500 acres; its boundaries are coterminous with those of the Gravelly Ford Water District (District). Grape vineyards, nut tree groves, and on-farm rural residences are the only land uses in the Area. The District has from the beginning bee’n a conjunctive use operation with the import of surface water for both recharge and irrigation. The management of this operation has been to utilize the maximum amount of available surface waters prior to using groundwater for the production of crops.

Ground Water in the Central Valley, California - A Summary Report

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | June 1st, 1991

The agricultural productivity of the Central Valley depends on irrigation. Half of the 22 million acre-feet of irrigation water applied annually is ground water. The va

The agricultural productivity of the Central Valley depends on irrigation. Half of the 22 million acre-feet of irrigation water applied annually is ground water. The valley is a long, narrow structural trough filled with about 32,000 feet of sediment in the south and as much as 50,000 feet in the north. Nearly all the fresh ground water is contained in the continental rocks and deposits younger than Eocene age. Streamflow, an important factor in recharging the aquifer system, is influenced by precipitation in the mountains surrounding the valley. The majority of recharge from infiltration of streamflow occurs on the east side of the valley. Ground-water pumpage, which greatly exceeds the natural recharge rate, has dramatically altered the ground-water flow in the Central Valley. During the 1960's and 1970's, the recharge rate was more than five times that of the predevelopment period and was largely derived from percolation of imported surface water or recirculated pumped ground water rather than precipitation and recharge from streams. Prior to development, most ground water was discharged as evapotranspiration; however, in recent years, most discharge has been well pumpage. Computer simulation of the Central Valley aquifer system suggests that the total flow through the system has increased from about 2 million acre-feet per year to nearly 12 million acre-feet per year. The vertical movement of ground water has been artificially enhanced by many of the 100,000 irrigation wells that contain long intervals of perforated casing. When unpumped, these wells permit vertical flow between permeable layers within the aquifer system. The total fresh ground water presently (1986) in storage in the upper 1,000 feet of the aquifer system is about 800 million acre-feet. During the 1960's and 1970's, ground water in storage was depleted at an average rate of 800,000 acre-feet annually. In the San Joaquin Valley from the 1940's to the late 1960's, substantial withdrawals of ground water were accompanied by hundreds of feet of head decline. This head decline caused inelastic compaction of fine-grained beds, resulting in land subsidence that is unequaled anywhere else in the world. More than one-half of the San Joaquin Valley (or about 5,200 square miles) underwent subsidence of more than 1 foot. In one location, subsidence exceeded 29 feet. Within the areas of heavy withdrawals, subsidence is greatest where the aquifer system contains thick sections of montmorillonite clay. Land subsidence created engineering and economic problems, including damage to canals and drainage systems, and loss of irrigation wells caused by casing failure. More recently (since the drought of 1976-77), surface-water imports have increased, ground-water pumpage has decreased, and in places, ground-water levels have recovered. Land subsidence has virtually ceased; however, it could resume with increased pumpage, if water levels decline below previous lows. Ground-water quality in the Central Valley is generally influenced by the water from streams that are a major source of recharge. In general, water on the east side of the valley and from east-side streams contains low concentrations of dissolved solids compared to water on the west side and from west-side streams. Concentrations of dissolved solids in ground water generally are lower in the northern part of the valley than in the southern part. There are, however, localized exceptions in many places through the valley. Local concentrations of boron, chloride, and nitrate in the ground water of the Central Valley are large enough to be a problem either to crops or humans. Human activities have some influence on the concentration and location of water-quality problems in the valley. Significant increases in concentrations of dissolved solids and, specifically, dissolved nitrate indicate that ground-water quality is degrading as a result of increasing application of fertilizer in agricultural areas and the growth of urban population. Pesticides such as dibromochloropropane (DBCP) as well as selenium and other trace elements in agricultural drainage water cause ecological and health problems in the San Joaquin Valley.