Developing the Next Framework to Manage the Colorado River: Flexible Tools to Benefit Tribes and the Basin

Water and Tribes Initiative | August 2nd, 2022

Economic Efficiency of Water Use and Allocation in California: A Scoping-Level Analysis

Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force (Delta Vision) | July 1st, 2008

This report identifies key issues related to the economic efficiency of water development, allocation and use in California and discusses general policy changes that migh

This report identifies key issues related to the economic efficiency of water development, allocation and use in California and discusses general policy changes that might improve economic efficiency. Policy options focus on water pricing, water transfers, water use efficiency (i.e, conservation) and State development and enforcement policies. Analysis is provided at a scoping level of detail. Some important empirical issues that weigh on the relative merits of potential policy changes are not addressed. Efficiency of water use has never been more important in California. There is a need to save water and money. California has recently made progress in improved economic efficiency of water use, but major issues remain. Also, recent changes in the amount and location of supplies suggest a review of allocation efficiency. There are two important efficiency topics that this paper does not address in detail. First, economic efficiency of water use for ecosystem purposes is a viable concept, but it is difficult to apply given the state of Delta ecosystem science and the current range of possible futures. We can not quantify the relationship between water and ecosystem functions and values. Therefore, our ability to prescribe efficiency changes related to Delta water for ecosystem purposes is limited. Second, this paper also does not address the economic efficiency of major new storage or Delta conveyance facilities. The efficiency of specific water supply projects including regional or local conjunctive use and groundwater storage projects are also not considered. These are being addressed in different forums. This report focuses on other types of uses, allocations and development of water. A variety of potential actions and policies that might improve efficiency in the allocation, use and development of water resources are discussed. Some of the efficiency issues are • Are water allocations under California’s water rights systems efficient? • If there are inefficiencies, could an effective water transfer market increase efficiency? • Are there barriers or constraints to water transfer markets that should be removed? • How could water pricing be changed to increase efficiency? • How could California encourage efficiency in the use and development of water through incentives such as grants and loans, and through enforcement? In all cases, our findings represent potential improvements from the perspective of economic efficiency alone. There are usually other, non-economic considerations which would play into the larger question of the laws and policies that might be changed.

Effective Implementation of the Public Trust Doctrine in California Water Resources Decision-Making: A View From the Bench

University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) | April 12th, 2012

Forty years ago, in his seminal law review article on the public trust doctrine, Professor Joseph L. Sax suggested that “citizens seeking to develop a comprehen

Forty years ago, in his seminal law review article on the public trust doctrine, Professor Joseph L. Sax suggested that “citizens seeking to develop a comprehensive legal approach to resource management problems” could use the public trust doctrine to obtain “effective judicial intervention” where “legislative response and administrative action” had been inconsistent. Of course, water is one of the natural resources to which the public trust doctrine is, and always has been, particularly applicable. And yet, it was not until ten years after Professor Sax published his article that Professor Ralph W. Johnson first predicted an impending “collision” between “[t]he public trust doctrine and the appropriative water rights system . . . in the West.” The imminence of that collision — in California at least — was due in no small part to the National Audubon Society’s then-pending suit against the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles (“L.A. Water and Power”) to limit diversions from the streams feeding Mono Lake.  That suit, which was a prime example of the sort of public interest litigation Professor Sax had advocated in his article, led to the California Supreme Court’s seminal decision in National Audubon, in which the court announced that “[t]he state has an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources, and to protect the public trust uses whenever feasible.” Today, twenty-eight years after the decision in National Audubon and more than forty years after Professor Sax’s article, what have we learned about the use of the public trust doctrine in water resources decision-making in California? Has it been an effective tool for obtaining judicial intervention in the decision-making process, as Professor Sax suggested it could be? And, more importantly, is judicial intervention the best way to effectuate and protect public trust values in the state’s water resources? Those are some of the questions I seek to answer in this Article.

Enduring Solutions on the Colorado River

Arizona State University (ASU) | August 16th, 2024

As we work to reduce water use on the post-2026 Colorado River, two paths lie open before us. One is to incentivize conservation by giving water users the chance to bank

As we work to reduce water use on the post-2026 Colorado River, two paths lie open before us. One is to incentivize conservation by giving water users the chance to bank saved water for later use. Known most commonly as Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS), and more broadly in a series of increasingly creative implementations as “Assigned Water,” this creates short term savings. But in the long run, the approach entitles the users to take the water back out of thE bank. The other involves permanent reductions – “System Water.” Water use is reduced for the benefit of the Colorado River as a whole. Investment in Assigned Water, attractive to water managers because of the allure that they can get their water back, has crowded out investment in the more durable System Water reductions that will be needed to bring the Colorado River into balance. As we develop new operating rules for the river, we need to be mindful of the differences involved. Accounting for water as Assigned Water is a means to reduce total water use in the short-term but the basin requires a means to reduce total water use over the long-term. Enduring solutions on the river can only be found by addressing overallocation, which at its most basic means that there needs to be more unassigned water in Lake Mead. Click here for Part II

Enduring Solutions on the Colorado River Part II Floating Pools and Grand Bargains

Arizona State University (ASU) | April 18th, 2025

Conserving water now in reservoir savings banks, as a hedge against future risks associated with drought and declining flows, has emerged as one of the central tools for

Conserving water now in reservoir savings banks, as a hedge against future risks associated with drought and declining flows, has emerged as one of the central tools for managing the Colorado River. The Lower Basin "Intentionally Created Surplus" program, created in the 2007 Interim Guidelines, has shown the idea's promise and given the basin nearly two decades to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. With tweaks to allow similar efforts in the Upper Basin and other modifications based on what we have learned about the current ICS approach, such "Floating Pools" are one of the key tools being considered as negotiators try to thread the needle of a seven-state agreement for post-2026 Colorado River management.mDone properly, they have the potential to finesse the states' disagreement over the terms of the 1922 Colorado River Compact in a way that could avoid potentially disruptive litigation. But getting the details right will be crucial to the development of an enduring bargain that can help the basin avoid the risk of interstate litigation. Click here for Part 1

Essential Pillars for the Post-2026 Colorado River Guidelines

John Fleck | April 25th, 2025

Estuary News, April 2004

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | April 15th, 2004

Estuary News, April 2005

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | April 15th, 2005

Estuary News, August 2003

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | August 15th, 2003

Estuary News, December 1997

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | December 15th, 1997