Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution (Resource Management Strategy)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 29th, 2016

Providing a reliable supply of safe drinking water is the primary goal of public water systems in California. To achieve this goal, public water systems must develop and

Providing a reliable supply of safe drinking water is the primary goal of public water systems in California. To achieve this goal, public water systems must develop and maintain adequate water treatment and distribution facilities. In addition, the reliability, quality, and safety of the raw water supply are critical to achieving this goal. In general, public water systems depend greatly on the work of other entities to help protect and maintain the quality of the raw water supply. Many agencies and organizations have a role in protecting water supplies in California. For example, the basin plans developed by the regional water quality control boards recognize the importance of this goal and emphasize protecting water supplies — both groundwater and surface water. A public water system is defined as a system for the provision of water for human consumption, through pipes or other constructed conveyances, which has 15 or more service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days of the year (Health and Safety Code Section 116275[h]). Public water systems are divided into three principle classifications: community water systems (CWS), non-transient non-community (NTNC) water systems, and transient non-community (TNC) water systems. As the name indicates, CWS serve cities, towns, and other residential facilities occupied by year-round users. Examples include everything from apartment complexes served by their own wells to systems serving California’s largest cities. NTNC systems are public water systems that are not CWS and provide water to the same non-residential users daily for at least 180 days of the year. Examples include schools, places of employment, and institutions. TNC systems are places that provide water for a population that mostly comes and goes. Examples include campgrounds, parks, ski resorts, rest stops, gas stations, and motels. CWS serve approximately million of the estimated 37.7 million people throughout the state, or 97 percent of the state’s population. The remaining estimated 1.1 million people in the state (3 percent of the population) receive their drinking water from private wells serving their individual residences or from other sources. Virtually every Californian and visitor to the state will use drinking water from a regulated public water system through their work, while on vacation, or while traveling through the state.

Economic consequences of optimized water management for a prolonged, severe drought in California

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | May 21st, 2010

If abrupt climate change has occurred in the past and may be more likely under human forcing, it is relevant to look at the adaptability of current infrastructure system

If abrupt climate change has occurred in the past and may be more likely under human forcing, it is relevant to look at the adaptability of current infrastructure systems to severe conditions of the recent past. Geologic evidence suggests two extreme droughts in California during the last few thousand years, each 120–200 years long, with mean annual streamflows 40%–60% of the historical mean. This study synthesized a 72-year drought with half of mean historical inflows using random sampling of historical dry years. One synthetic hydrological record is used, and sensitivity to different interpretations of the paleo record is not evaluated. Economic effects and potential adaptation of California’s water supply system in 2020 to this drought is explored using a hydro-economic optimization model. The model considers how California could respond to such an extreme drought using water trading and provides best‐case estimates of economic costs and effects on water operations and demands. Results illustrate the ability of extensive, intertied, and flexible water systems with heterogeneous water demands to respond to severe stress. The study follows a different approach to climate change impact studies, focusing on past climate changes from the paleorecord rather than downscaled general circulation model results to provide plausible hydrologic scenarios. Adaptations suggested for the sustained drought are similar for dry forms of climate warming in California and are expensive but not catastrophic for the overall economy but would impose severe burdens on the agricultural sector and environmental water uses.

Economic Incentives— Loans, Grants, and Water Pricing (Resource Management Strategy)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 29th, 2016

Economic incentives include financial assistance, water pricing, and water market policies intended to influence water management. Economic incentives can influence the a

Economic incentives include financial assistance, water pricing, and water market policies intended to influence water management. Economic incentives can influence the amount and time of water use, wastewater volume, and source of water supply. Examples of economic incentives include low interest loans, grants, and water rates and rate structures. Free services, rebates, and the use of tax revenues to partially fund water services also have a direct effect on the prices paid by water users. Government financial assistance can provide incentives for integrated resource plans by regional and local agencies. Also, government financial assistance can help water suppliers make incentives available to their water users for a specific purpose. Assistance programs can also help align the economic and financial drivers affecting local, regional, and statewide water management decisions to minimize unintended consequences and maximize the benefits of working cooperatively with consistent goals and objectives. As opposed to incentives, penalties are a type of economic disincentive that can be used to discourage undesirable water use behavior. Incentives can be created or enhanced by facilitating water market transfers, by creating market opportunities where they did not exist, by expanding opportunities where they currently exist, or by reducing market transaction costs. In each case, new or enhanced market opportunities can influence water management decisions.

Economic Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Delta Protection Commission (DPC) | July 19th, 2012

The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is a unique place of economic, environmental, historic, and cultural significance. The land and water resources of the Delta suppor

The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is a unique place of economic, environmental, historic, and cultural significance. The land and water resources of the Delta support significant agricultural and recreation economies, and the Delta also has an important role as an infrastructure hub for water, energy, and transportation. The region’s rich history boasts of bustling, river-based commerce before the automobile age, and its cultural uniqueness includes the only rural town in America build by early Chinese immigrants. As the largest estuary on the west coast of the Americas, the Delta also is a place of striking natural beauty and ecological significance that is struggling with serious environmental degradation problems. Although surrounded by growing cities, the Delta remains a highly-productive agricultural area with rural charms, landscapes, and waterscapes not found elsewhere in California. In recent years, there has been great concern over increasing environmental degradation in the Delta and over court decisions that reduced the quantity of water delivered to southern California through the state and federal water project intakes in the south Delta to protect endangered fish. Combined with additional concerns about the stability of the Delta’s levee system, these concerns led the California legislature to pass the Delta Reform Act of 2009. The Act created the Delta Stewardship Council and charged it with developing a Delta Plan to achieve the coequal goals of “providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem.” Recognizing the potential impact of the Delta Plan on the people and economy of the Delta, the Delta Reform Act stated that the coequal goals of water supply reliability and restoring the Delta ecosystem “shall be achieved in a manner that protects and enhances the unique cultural, recreational, natural resource, and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place.” Among the measures to address this goal, the Delta Protection Commission was tasked with developing this Economic Sustainability Plan to inform the Delta Stewardship Council’s development of the Delta Plan. The Legislature established the following guidelines for the Economic Sustainability Plan in the Delta Reform Act of 2009: "The economic sustainability plan shall include information and recommendations that inform the Delta Stewardship Council’s policies regarding the socioeconomic sustainability of the Delta region. (b) The economic sustainability plan shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following: 1) Public safety recommendations, such as flood protection recommendations. 2) The economic goals, policies, and objectives in local general plans and other local economic efforts, including recommendations on continued socioeconomic sustainability of agriculture and its infrastructure and legacy communities in the Delta. 3) Comments and recommendations to the Department of Water Resources concerning its periodic update of the flood management plan for the Delta. 4) Identification of ways to encourage recreational investment along the key river corridors, as appropriate. Since a key purpose of this Economic Sustainability Plan is to inform the Delta Plan under development by the Delta Stewardship Council, this report analyzes the impact of key policies being considered for the plan on the economic sustainability of the Delta. Many of the most significant proposals for the Delta are being developed in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The policy proposals can be grouped into four categories: 1) water conveyance, 2) habitat creation, 3) levees, and 4) land use regulation. The report also considers many aspects of economic sustainability in the Delta that are unrelated to these water policy proposals including economic development recommendations in the 2008 Delta Vision Strategic Plan.

Economics of a State Water Resources Program

Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) | July 9th, 1957

Enlarging Shasta Lake: Total Water Management Strategy for the Central Valley Basin, California

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | November 1st, 1978

Enlargement of Shasta Lake, possibly up to three or four times its present size of 4,552,000 acre-feet, is one of the limited number of possibilities for increasing the

Enlargement of Shasta Lake, possibly up to three or four times its present size of 4,552,000 acre-feet, is one of the limited number of possibilities for increasing the future water and hydropower supply for the Central Valley Basin and other areas in California. To compare the costs and impacts of this possibility on the environment and the economy with those of other alternatives would require further appraisal and feasibility studies. There are current overdrafts on ground water in the San Joaquin Valley, a shortage of water in the State Water Project, problems of maintaining water quality in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and water-related fish resource problems from Shasta through the Delta. The severity of the 1976-77 drought was greatly alleviated by the interim supplies made available from the Federal Central Valley and the State Water Projects. However, in the future, when these projects reach their designed capabilities, these interim supplies will not be available. If studies were begun now, it would probably be a minimum of 20 years before an enlarged Shasta Lake could be placed in operation.

Equity in Stormwater Investments: Measuring Community Engagement and Disadvantaged Community Benefits for Equitable Impact in the Safe Clean Water Program

Publisher not available | August 4th, 2022

The Safe, Clean Water Program (SCWP) reflects the will of the voters of Los Angeles County, who approved Measure W in 2018 by close to 70%. The ballot measure established

The Safe, Clean Water Program (SCWP) reflects the will of the voters of Los Angeles County, who approved Measure W in 2018 by close to 70%. The ballot measure established a perpetual parcel tax “to fund projects and programs to increase stormwater capture and reduce stormwater and urban runoff pollution” in Los Angeles County “to increase water supply, improve water quality, and, where appropriate, provide community enhancements such as the greening of schools, parks, and wetlands, and increased public access to rivers, lakes, and streams.” In an ordinance implementing the Safe Clean Water Program, the county Board of Supervisors included provisions to prioritize equity in implementation and affirmed an intention to address inequity in infrastructure in August 2021. Those provisions gave rise to this report, which provides advice drawn from research and stakeholder engagement to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) for measuring community engagement and Disadvantaged Community Benefits to better achieve the equitable impact sought by the SCWP. As part of a broader SCWP Metrics and Monitoring Study (MMS) commissioned by the LACFCD, we were charged with conducting research, consulting with stakeholders, and giving advice to the SCWP for metrics to measure community engagement and Disadvantaged Community Benefits.

Estuary News, April 2009

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | April 15th, 2009

Estuary News, June 2016

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | June 15th, 2016

Estuary News, June 2019

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | June 15th, 2019