South Lahontan

Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Task Force Water Use Best Management Practices Report to the Legislature

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | October 21st, 2013

This report to Legislature, Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Task Force Water Use Best Management Practices, identifies specific practices to improve water use e

This report to Legislature, Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Task Force Water Use Best Management Practices, identifies specific practices to improve water use efficiency and support California’s water supply sustainability. It is intended to provide the CII sectors with information on water-saving technologies and BMPs applicable in the CII sectors. The report is also intended for use as a resource for: • Existing and new businesses, facilities, and institutions • Developers, consultants, and designers • Water service providers • Planning agencies • Policy makers This two-part document is linked below.  The Executive Summary is also linked in the display window. Executive Summary Volume 1 - A Summary Volume 2 - Technical Information

Community estimate of global glacier mass changes from 2000 to 2023

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | February 19th, 2025

Glaciers are indicators of ongoing anthropogenic climate change1. Their melting leads to increased local geohazards2, and impacts marine3 and terrestrial4,5 ecosystems, r

Glaciers are indicators of ongoing anthropogenic climate change1. Their melting leads to increased local geohazards2, and impacts marine3 and terrestrial4,5 ecosystems, regional freshwater resources6, and both global water and energy cycles7,8. Together with the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, glaciers are essential drivers of present9,10 and future11,12,13 sea-level rise. Previous assessments of global glacier mass changes have been hampered by spatial and temporal limitations and the heterogeneity of existing data series14,15,16. Here we show in an intercomparison exercise that glaciers worldwide lost 273 ± 16 gigatonnes in mass annually from 2000 to 2023, with an increase of 36 ± 10% from the first (2000–2011) to the second (2012–2023) half of the period. Since 2000, glaciers have lost between 2% and 39% of their ice regionally and about 5% globally. Glacier mass loss is about 18% larger than the loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet and more than twice that from the Antarctic Ice Sheet17. Our results arise from a scientific community effort to collect, homogenize, combine and analyse glacier mass changes from in situ and remote-sensing observations. Although our estimates are in agreement with findings from previous assessments14,15,16 at a global scale, we found some large regional deviations owing to systematic differences among observation methods. Our results provide a refined baseline for better understanding observational differences and for calibrating model ensembles12,16,18, which will help to narrow projection uncertainty for the twenty-first century11,12,18. Click here for more about the Glacier Mass Balance Intercomparison Exercise 

Comparison of the Performance of Different Bioassessment Methods: Similar Evaluations of Biotic Integrity from Separate Programs and Procedures

Journal of the North American Benthological Society (University of Chicago Press) | January 16th, 2006

Regional bioassessment programs of states, various federal agencies, and other governmental and private groups often use different methods to collect and analyz

Regional bioassessment programs of states, various federal agencies, and other governmental and private groups often use different methods to collect and analyze stream invertebrate samples. This lack of uniformity has created concern and confusion over the comparability of disparate sources of data, but few studies have attempted to evaluate differences in performance between methods or to reconcile the results produced from different methods. We conducted concurrent sampling at 40 sites in the eastern Sierra Nevada of California using 3 bioassessment methods to obtain directly comparable data sets. The riffle-based methods (University of California Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory [UC-SNARL, Lahontan Water Board], California Stream Bioassessment Protocol, and US Forest Service Region 5) differed at each stage from field sample collection to laboratory processing and data analysis. We used a performance-based methods system to compare precision, uniformity, discrimination, accuracy, and correlations among multimetric Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores and multivariate River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS)-type observed/expected (O/E) ratios. Reference and test sites were identified using local and upstream-watershed disturbance criteria, and invertebrate community measures and models were then developed to discriminate between reference and test sites. The more- intensive UC-SNARL method showed slightly, but consistently, greater sensitivity for discriminating impairment than the other 2 methods. The UC-SNARL method produced greater differences between reference- and test-site means relative to lower reference-site standard deviations than the other 2 methods. However, assessment scores were highly correlated among methods and distinguished reference from test sites with similar accuracy among methods despite the slight differences in performance. Our results show that differing bioassessment methods can yield very similar, effective discrimination of impaired biological condition even though they have multiple differences in field and laboratory protocols (mesh size, replication, area sampled, taxonomic resolution, total counts). Moreover, this conclusion did not depend on the approach taken to data analysis because both multimetric IBIs and multivariate RIVPACS-type O/Es were in close agreement. Methodological uniformity is important when coordinating monitoring programs, but our results suggest that data from multiple sources could potentially be used interchangeably and for cross-validation of assessments of stream biological integrity.

Complete Report on Construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct

City of Los Angeles | January 15th, 1916

Comprehensive Groundwater Cleanup Strategy for Historical Chromium Discharges from PG&E's Hinkley Compressor Station, San Bernardino County, Final Environmental Impact Report Volume I: Comments on Draft EIR and Responses

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | April 20th, 2013

Click here for Volume II

Click here for Volume II

Concentrations for total dissolved solids, arsenic, boron, fluoride, and nitrite-nitrate for wells sampled in the Mojave Water Agency Management Area

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | July 1st, 2001

Concentrations for total dissolved solids, arsenic, boron, fluoride, and nitrite-nitrate for wells sampled in the Mojave Water Agency Management Area, California, 1991-97

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | January 31st, 2001

Conjunctive Water Management Resource Management Strategy

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | April 29th, 2024

Conjunctive water management, also referred to as conjunctive use, is broadly defined as the coordinated and planned use and management of the different sources of water

Conjunctive water management, also referred to as conjunctive use, is broadly defined as the coordinated and planned use and management of the different sources of water in time and space. It is usually focused on surface water and groundwater resources to maximize the availability and reliability of water supplies in a region to meet various management objectives. It is a holistic approach to water resource management that can increase available water for beneficial uses, allow water agencies greater flexibility in scheduling deliveries, and improve drought resiliency (California Department of Water Resources 2003).

Contributions of Climate Change and ENSO Variability to Future Precipitation Extremes Over California

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | June 14th, 2023

Counties Wresting Control: Local Responses to California's Statewide Water Market

University of Denver Water Law Review (UDWLR) | January 1st, 2003