Tulare Lake

The Benefits of Headwater Forest Management

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | April 1st, 2020

Forests in California are increasingly vulnerable to major wildfires and droughts that threaten the benefits they provide. Improving the health of headwater forests in th

Forests in California are increasingly vulnerable to major wildfires and droughts that threaten the benefits they provide. Improving the health of headwater forests in the Sierra, in particular—where most of the state’s surface water supplies originate—will provide an array of social, economic, and environmental benefits across multiple sectors and geographies. Research by forest ecologists and wildfire behavior experts finds that the best way to realize these benefits is to reestablish and maintain lower densities of trees, which will help make these forests more resilient to fire, drought, and pests.  Healthier forests can support rural communities, reduce air quality impacts from wildfires, securely store carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect water quality from post-fire erosion, and increase water supply. The broad base of beneficiaries of headwater forest management includes rural communities in the headwater region, regions that are vulnerable to smoke impacts from major wildfires, and major urban areas and agricultural regions that receive water and hydropower from headwater forests.  Improving forest health will require a substantial lift from an array of private and public entities—along with new policies and sources of funding to facilitate complex, collaborative management. Clarifying the benefits and beneficiaries of forest management is a critical step in motivating long-term stewardship, and will inform efforts to craft financial tools, policies, and other governance solutions needed to make this heavy lift. By assessing what is known about the benefits of forest management, this report provides crucial information for ongoing policy discussions on long-term stewardship of California’s headwater forests. 

The Burns-Porter Act: A California High Water Mark

State Water Contractors (SWC) | April 2nd, 1984

The California Peripheral Canal: Who Backed It, Who Fought It

California Agriculture (UCANR) | January 3rd, 1983

The California Water Atlas

Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) | October 24th, 1979

This book sets out to tell the biggest story in the richest and most populous state in the Union. Water lies at the basis of the modern prosperity of California, and th

This book sets out to tell the biggest story in the richest and most populous state in the Union. Water lies at the basis of the modern prosperity of California, and the history of the state is in large part the history of water development. The problems of water supply and delivery for the future are emerging among the critical issues facing not only California but the entire American Southwest over the next ten years. And yet, at a time when environmental consciousness is high and complex problems of world energy supply and international finance are part of the normal fare in our daily newspapers, water remains probably the least popularly understood of our natural resources. For a higher resolution copy, click here to be taken to Digital Commons of California State University, Monterey Bay

The California Water Plan: Projected Use and Available Water Supplies to 2010

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 15th, 1983

The Central Valley Project - Federal or State?

University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) | June 1st, 1955

The Definition of Environmental Justice and the Designation of the California Office of Planning and Research as Coordinating Agency for Environmental Justice

State of California | November 18th, 2019

The Economic Impacts of Central Valley Salinity

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | March 20th, 2009

The study team was charged with measuring the economic impacts of increasing salinity in the Central Valley to the year 2030. The study was conducted assuming that there

The study team was charged with measuring the economic impacts of increasing salinity in the Central Valley to the year 2030. The study was conducted assuming that there is no change in current policy and, as such, represents the economic impacts associated with taking no action. Additionally, the study was conducted on an aggregate valley-wide basis that required averaging the effects of salinity and, in some cases, costs. The growth in salinity in the Central Valley was based on two factors. The first factor was the growth of the areas of shallow saline groundwater based on 30 years of historical records. The second factor was increased levels of salts that result indirectly from imported water. Based on increasing salinity stemming from these factors, the direct economic effects on industry, residential, food processing, confined animal operations, and irrigated agricultural production in the Central Valley were measured. Economic and physical effects were quantified using different physical and economic models. In addition, the team undertook a substantial survey of the population in the Central Valley to establish non-market values for increased salinity and its effect on non-market activities. The study results showed that if salinity increases at the current rate until 2030, the direct annual costs will range from $1 billion to $1.5 billion. Total annual income impacts to California will range between $1.7 billion to $3 billion by 2030. The income impacts to the Central Valley will range between $1.2 billion and $2.2 billion.  The production of goods and services in California could be reduced from $5 billion to $8.7 billion a year. The Central Valley output reduction would range between $2.8 billion to $5.3 billion. Furthermore, there is $145 million per year of non-market costs. In terms of job losses the increase in salinity by 2030 could cost the Central Valley economy 27,000 to 53,000 jobs. California could lose 34,000 to 64,000 jobs. In short, the problem is substantial and growing steadily. The magnitude of the economic and employment losses justifies a more detailed study of remedial action and correction policies.

The Economic Value of Carryover Storage in California’s Water Supply System with Limited Hydrologic Foresight

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 1st, 2021

The security and prosperity of California’s economy depend on a large, interconnected and highly engineered water supply system with vast surface and groundwater stora

The security and prosperity of California’s economy depend on a large, interconnected and highly engineered water supply system with vast surface and groundwater storage operated for over-year storage. Substantial public investment is needed to maintain and improve these systems with changing climate risks, increasing demands, and aging infrastructure. Hydro-economic optimization identifies promising opportunities for managing such systems, but scientific and engineering advances are needed to better incorporate hydrologic uncertainty and conjunctive management of streams and aquifers into such models. Over two decades of research the California Value Integrated Network (CALVIN) linear programming hydro-economic model has yielded insights for California’s inter-regional water system on many fronts, including climate change, groundwater sustainability, conjunctive management in southern California, water markets, and reservoir operations in Northern California. Yet there remains unrealized potential to improve the model’s formulation to better represent inter-annual hydrologic variability while concurrently developing reservoir control rules. To address this gap, this study implements linearized quadratic carryover storage value functions on 26 surface reservoirs and linear groundwater storage penalties on 32 groundwater reservoirs to optimize California’s inter-regional water system seasonal and inter-annual operations with limited seasonal foresight. A convex Pareto front tradeoff between total system cost and groundwater overdraft is developed through multi-objective evolutionary optimization of inter-annual carryover storage penalties. Resulting over-year storage valuations span a wide range of nearoptimal reservoir operations, suggesting substantial system flexibility and adaptability when managed in an integrated way. Generalized relationships between carryover capacity, carryover use, and the marginal value of carryover storage are drawn for the multi-reservoir system. When compared to carryover operations based on California’s current simulation model, CalSim-II, the performance of these near-optimal reservoir operations suggests room to improve currently prescribed reservoir control rules, especially in supporting more  sustainable conjunctive management with aquifers. Overall, this study demonstrates the practicability, feasibility, and utility for understanding large-scale integrated multi-reservoir conjunctive use systems using limited foresight with explicit carryover storage values.

The Economic Value of Efficiency for California Water Service: Lower Water Bills

Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) | June 28th, 2024

Prior to 2009, California Water Service Company (Cal Water) did not meter all its water customers, did not have conservation rates, and did not offer a robust set of cons

Prior to 2009, California Water Service Company (Cal Water) did not meter all its water customers, did not have conservation rates, and did not offer a robust set of conservation programs. Per capita water use had been flat or increasing prior to this period. In 2009, Cal Water adopted conservation rate designs (increasing block rates, IBRs), increased conservation program expenditures by more than three-fold and implemented an accelerated schedule to convert unmetered customers to metered water service. Per capita water demand has decreased steadily since 2009. These innovative strategies related to water efficiency, conservation, and rates over the years pose the questions: What would the economic impact on bills have been if none of these activities occurred? Are bill-paying customers better or worse off?