streams – California Water Library

Page

Showing
11-21 of 67

Per Page

Sort By

Bulletin No. 5, Flow in California Streams, Being Appendix "A" to Report to Legislature of 1923 on the Water Resources of California

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 1st, 1923

Summary

View Document Download Now Email

California Non-point Source Program Implementation Plan 2014 - 2020

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | August 5th, 2015

Summary

The 2014 - 2020 California Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program Implementation Plan (NPS Program Implementation Plan) describes how the State will be using its resources to effe

The 2014 - 2020 California Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program Implementation Plan (NPS Program Implementation Plan) describes how the State will be using its resources to effectively prevent NPS pollution from impacting surface water and groundwater in California. The vision for the CA NPS Program is to restore and protect the beneficial uses of the State’s waters through the reduction of NPS pollution and attaining water quality objectives. This document serves as an update to the CA NPS Program Plan as approved by U.S. EPA and NOAA in 2000. As such, California will continue to implement a comprehensive statewide program working to implement management measures to address NPS pollution consistent with U.S. EPA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration approval.

View Document Download Now Email

California Wetland and Riparian Area Protection Policy Technical Memorandum No. 5: Stream Definition

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | April 20th, 2016

Summary

With this memorandum, the Technical Advisory Team (TAT) recommends a definition of California streams to the Policy Development Team (PDT) of the State Water Quality Cont

With this memorandum, the Technical Advisory Team (TAT) recommends a definition of California streams to the Policy Development Team (PDT) of the State Water Quality Control Board (State Water Board) for its Wetland and Riparian Area Protection Policy (WRAPP). This memorandum does not recommend any process or procedure for identifying, delineating, or classifying streams, nor are such recommendations being planned by the TAT at this time. However, the TAT recommends that such processes and procedures should be developed in the future to support the WRAPP. The California Wetland Monitoring Workgroup (CWMW) is preparing recommendations for stream mapping as part of the recommending methodology of the California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI).

View Document Download Now Email

Design and methods of the California stream quality assessment (CSQA), 2017

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | April 21st, 2020

Summary

During 2017, as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted the California Stream Quality Assessment to investigate the qu

During 2017, as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted the California Stream Quality Assessment to investigate the quality of streams in the Central California Foothills and Coastal Mountains ecoregion, United States. The goal of the California Stream Quality Assessment study was to assess the health of wadeable streams in the region by characterizing multiple water-quality factors that are stressors to aquatic biota and by evaluating the relation between these stressors and biological indicators of stream health. Urbanization, agriculture, and modifications to streamflow are anthropogenic changes that affect water quality in the region; consequently, the study design primarily targeted sites and specific stressors associated with these activities. For the study, 85 stream sites were selected to represent the types and intensity of land use in the watershed; categories of site types were undeveloped, urban (low, medium, high), agriculture (low, high), and mixed (urban and agriculture). Most sites (about 70 percent) represent a gradient of urbanization from undeveloped to 99-percent urbanized. At most of the sites, streamgages or pressure transducers were used to monitor stream discharge and stage, as well as temperature. Water-quality samples were collected routinely at all sites and were analyzed for major ions, organic contaminants, nutrients, and suspended sediment. Sampling frequency varied on the basis of site type and location. Discrete water samples were collected weekly and generally 6 times per site, except for 11 undeveloped sites that were sampled only 4 times (during the last 4 weeks). Water sampling began at sites in the southern part of the study on March 13, 2017, and at sites in the northern part of the study on April 3, 2017. Passive samplers were deployed at most sites for measurement of polar organic contaminants (pesticides and pharmaceuticals). In May 2017, coincident with completion of water-quality sampling, an ecological survey was conducted at each site to assess benthic algal and macroinvertebrate communities and instream habitat. During the ecological surveys, a single composite streambed-sediment sample was collected for chemical analysis and toxicity testing. In addition, a few focused studies were done at subsets of sites, namely, measuring pesticides using small-volume automated samplers, measuring pesticides in biofilms, and sampling suspended sediments using passive samplers. This report describes the various study components and methods of the California Stream Quality Assessment, including measurements of water quality, sediment chemistry, habitat assessments, and ecological surveys, as well as procedures for sample analysis, quality assurance and quality control, and data management.

View Document Download Now Email

Ecological Condition Assessments of California’s Perennial Wadeable Streams (2000 through 2006)

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | October 15th, 2007

Summary

The struggle to adequately monitor the condition of waterbodies with limited financial resources is a challenge faced by water resource agencies worldwide. For a resource

The struggle to adequately monitor the condition of waterbodies with limited financial resources is a challenge faced by water resource agencies worldwide. For a resource agency to adequately meet its obligations to monitor and assess the condition of its waterbodies it must provide information at both the site-specific scale and the scale of the entire resource. This dual obligation requires different monitoring strategies. Traditional targeted monitoring (in which site locations are selected to meet specific monitoring goals) is essential for answering many key water quality monitoring questions (e.g., what is the condition of specific sites, how do site conditions vary seasonally and annually, where are the best and worst sites, what are the primary water quality problems at specific sites, what are the effects of specific watershed activities and/or BMPs). Although this approach can generate much valuable water quality data, it is unable to provide information about the overall condition of large populations of resources (e.g., all streams, lakes or wetlands in a state) unless the monitoring entity is prepared to perform a complete census of the targeted resource. Site specific monitoring approaches are also unable to provide an objective context for interpreting the data they generate. However, the perspective provided from this context is a necessary logical foundation for a sound monitoring program. In the US, the need for a broader context for interpreting the results of targeted monitoring data has driven the development of alternate sampling designs at both the state and federal level. To meet this need, the U.S. EPA established its Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), a long term research program designed to develop the tools and techniques needed for cost-effectively answering the fundamental status and trends questions in the Clean Water Act. The EMAP studies are based on a probabilistic survey design in which each sampling location represents a known proportion of the total resource of interest (e.g., percent of total stream length) with known statistical confidence. This design permits the inference of resource conditions for large geographic regions with a relatively small investment in sampling (Ringold et al. 1996, Olsen et al. 1999, Stevens and Olsen 2004). After completing assessments of the condition of Eastern lakes and the condition of wadeable streams in the Middle-Atlantic states, the EPA initiated a similar assessment of streams in the western states (WEMAP), which included a high density of sites in California. For the first time in 2006, the state of California used data from a probability survey to derive the condition assessments of its perennial streams in its 305(b) report to the US EPA (Ode and Rehn 2005, California State Water Resources Control Board 2006). These reports were developed to meet California’s obligation to monitor its compliance with the goal of biotic integrity stipulated under Clean Water Act §305(b). Prior to these report, the ABL has presented results of the Southern Coastal California intensification area (Rehn and Ode 2004), Northern Coastal California intensification area (Rehn et al. 2005) as demonstration projects. As the EPA’s Western EMAP sampling effort ended in 2003, the EPA strongly encouraged western states to continue the EMAP monitoring approach in their own state monitoring programs. Two monitoring programs in the California State Water Resources Control Board, the recently established Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) and the Non-Point Source Program (NPS) expressed interest in probabilistic sampling. In concert with (and with funding from) their counterparts in the EPA Region 9 Non-point Source Programs and Office of Water, NPS and SWAMP developed the California Monitoring and Assessment Program (CMAP) to provide an additional four years of statewide probabilistic sampling to support continued ecological condition assessments. The study designs used for these condition assessments were developed by the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. Since the state and federal NPS programs brought a strong interest in the relationship between non-point source pollution sources and aquatic life use, the sampling design was adapted to include an explicit stratification by landuse/ landcover.

View Document Download Now Email

Ecological Condition Assessments of California’s Perennial Wadeable Streams: Highlights from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program’s Perennial Streams Assessment (PSA ) (2000-2007)

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | October 1st, 2011

Summary

Since 2000, California has conducted three successive probability surveys of its perennial streams and rivers, each with a focus on biological endpoints. These surveys ar

Since 2000, California has conducted three successive probability surveys of its perennial streams and rivers, each with a focus on biological endpoints. These surveys are now combined and are managed collectively by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) under its Perennial Streams Assessment (PSA) program. In 2010, SWAMP’s Perennial Streams Assessment (PSA) conducted the State Water Board’s eleventh continuous year of probability monitoring of perennial, wadeable streams. To date, the program has collected biological data (invertebrates, algae) and associated chemical and habitat data from approximately 850 probabilistic sites statewide. These surveys have produced a wealth of data that can and should be used to inform many decisions made by California’s water resource agencies. For example, the assessments in the 2006 California Water Quality Assessment Report (Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Report) were based in large part on data from these surveys. Data from these surveys were also used in the development of the 2010 Integrated Report. This report highlights some of the most significant results from the first eight years of PSA and demonstrates some ways that these data can go beyond 305(b) and 303(d) applications to improve California’s water quality programs. The results presented in this summary represent just a fraction of the potential uses of data generated by these ongoing surveys. As the data et becomes more robust, it will continue to support multiple uses for years to come. This report is organized around four questions that were used to frame management objectives for the State Water Board’s Non-Point Source Program (NPS), a major partner in PSA’s development: 1. What is the condition of California’s streams? 2. Is stream condition changing over time? 3. What is the relative condition of streams draining agricultural, urban and forested regions? 4. Which stressors have the strongest associations with biological condition? Future SWAMP reports will highlight the application of PSA data to various State Water Board water quality programs, including links to regional monitoring objectives.

View Document Download Now Email

Ecological Health in the Nation’s Streams, 1993–2005

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | July 2nd, 2013

Summary

This report summarizes a national assessment of the ecological health of streams done by the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NA

This report summarizes a national assessment of the ecological health of streams done by the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). Healthy functioning stream ecosystems provide society with many benefits, including water purification, flood control, nutrient recycling, waste decomposition, fisheries, and aesthetics. The value to society of many of these benefits is substantial; for example, sportfishing in the United States generates an estimated annual economic output of $125 billion, including more than 1 million jobs (National Research Council, 2005; American Sportfishing Association, 2008). Continued monitoring and assessment of the Nation’s streams is needed to support informed decisions that will safeguard this important natural and economic resource. The quality of streams and rivers is often assessed with measures of the chemical or physical properties of water. However, a more comprehensive perspective is obtained if resident biological communities are also assessed. Guidelines to protect human health and aquatic life have been established for specific physical and chemical properties of water and have become useful yardsticks with which to assess water quality. Biological communities provide additional crucial information because they live within streams for weeks to years and therefore integrate through time the effects of changes to their chemical or physical environment. In addition, biological communities are a direct measure of stream health—an indicator of the ability of a stream to support aquatic life. Thus, the condition of biological communities, integrated with key physical and chemical properties, provides a comprehensive assessment of stream health.

View Document Download Now Email

Effects of Urban Development on Stream Ecosystems in Nine Metropolitan Study Areas Across the United States

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | November 13th, 2012

Summary

Urban development is an important agent of environmental change in the United States. The urban footprint on the American landscape has expanded during a century and a ha

Urban development is an important agent of environmental change in the United States. The urban footprint on the American landscape has expanded during a century and a half of almost continuous development. Eighty percent of Americans now live in metropolitan areas, and the advantages and challenges of living in these developed areas—convenience, congestion, employment, pollution—are part of the day-to-day realities of most Americans. Nowhere are the environmental changes associated with urban development more evident than in urban streams. Contaminants, habitat destruction, and increasing streamflow flashiness resulting from urban development have been associated with the disruption of biological communities, particularly the loss of sensitive aquatic species. Every stream is connected downstream to larger water bodies, including rivers, reservoirs, and ultimately coastal waters. Inputs of chemical contaminants or sediments at any point along the stream can cause degradation downstream with adverse effects on biological communities and on economically valuable resources, such as fisheries and tourism. In response to general concerns about the degradation of urban streams, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a national-scale, scientific investigation of the effects of urban development on stream ecosystems. Nine metropolitan study areas of the United States were selected—Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah; Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; Raleigh, North Carolina; Boston, Massachusetts; Denver, Colorado; Dallas, Texas; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The studies were conducted in Salt Lake City, Birmingham, and Boston in 1999–2000; in Atlanta, Raleigh, and Denver in 2002–2003; and in Portland, Dallas, and Milwaukee in 2003–2004. The comprehensive investigation of all nine studies focused on three broad questions of interest to decision makers: 1. What are the primary effects of urban development on stream ecosystems? 2. How do the effects of urban development on stream ecosystems vary regionally across the country? 3. Which urban-related stressors are most closely linked to biological community degradation, and how can multiple stressors be managed to protect stream health as a watershed becomes increasingly urbanized? RELATED DOCUMENT: Strategies for Managing the Effects of Urban Development on Streams

View Document Download Now Email

Effects of wildfire on benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in Southern California streams and implications for bioassessment monitoring programs

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | June 13th, 2012

Summary

Wildfires are common in arid regions of southern California, sometimes burning as much as half a million acres in a season. These fires often cause dramatic impacts to th

Wildfires are common in arid regions of southern California, sometimes burning as much as half a million acres in a season. These fires often cause dramatic impacts to the vegetation and soils of regional watersheds and, consequently, to the streams that drain them. Water quality programs that monitor and regulate these systems have to account for the influence of these factors upon water quality measurements when making monitoring and regulatory decisions. This is true for traditional water quality measures (nutrients, metals, contaminants, etc.), but is especially important for integrative ecological condition indicators like bioassessment, the use of resident biological communities to infer water quality condition.

View Document Download Now Email

Estuary News, December 1999

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | December 15th, 1999

Summary

View Document Download Now Email

← Prev

Page : 2

Type

Book/Textbook (1)
Bulletin (1)
California Water Plan (1)
Case study (3)
Fact sheet (6)
Journal Article (19)
magazine (5)
Manual (1)
Memo (6)
Model (2)
Plan (1)
Report (15)
Research Article (1)
Research Brief (1)
Technical Report (10)

Topic

Agriculture (1)
Basic Information (1)
Cannabis (1)
Climate Change (9)
Drought & Hydrology (3)
Ecosystem & Species Management (15)
Ecosystem Restoration (3)
Estuary News (5)
Federal Water Quality (18)
Fisheries (5)
Flood Management (3)
Geochemistry (1)
Geohydrology (2)
Geohydrology (2)
Groundwater (6)
Levees (1)
Modeling (4)
Non Point Pollution Sources (5)
Planning & Management (7)
Point Pollution Sources (2)
Pollutants (9)
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (7)
State Water Quality (20)
Upper Watershed Management (6)
Water Quality (42)
Water Quality Monitoring (28)
Water Rights, Water Law (1)
Water Supply (5)
Wetland Mitigation (3)

Keywords

agricultural drainage (1)
agriculture (2)
anadromous fish (3)
atmospheric rivers (1)
basin characterization (1)
benthic macroinvertebrates (9)
bioassessment (14)
cannabis (1)
Central Valley (1)
climate change (7)
debris flow (2)
drought (2)
ecosystem management (6)
endangered species (2)
Estuary News (5)
fisheries (6)
flood management (3)
floodplain restoration (1)
flows (7)
groundwater contamination (4)
groundwater dependent ecosystems (3)
Groundwater Exchange (7)
groundwater pumping impacts (1)
groundwater recharge (2)
groundwater-surface water interaction (2)
habitat restoration (3)
land use (8)
levees (1)
mercury (2)
modeling (6)
monitoring (19)
native fish (4)
nitrates (2)
nutrients (2)
pesticides (7)
planning and management (5)
pollutants (6)
risk assessment (1)
Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (7)
science management (1)
sediment (6)
snowpack (2)
stormwater (1)
streams (67)
Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) (21)
upper watershed management (1)
wastewater (1)
water markets (1)
water project operations (1)
water quality (27)
water rights (1)
water supply (3)
water supply forecasting (3)
wetlands (4)

Publisher

American Geophysical Union (AGU) (4)
American Meteorological Society (AMS) (1)
Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository (1)
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (1)
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (23)
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) (1)
Environmental Research Letters (IOP) (1)
Freshwater Biology (Wiley) (1)
Frontiers in Water (Frontiers) (1)
Nature Conservancy (2)
Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) (4)
Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) (1)
River Research and Applications (Wiley) (1)
San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) (1)
San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) (5)
Science of the Total Environment (Elsevier) (4)
Scientific American (1)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (3)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (9)
Water (MDPI) (1)
Western North America Naturalist (1)

Basin

Hydrological Region

Central Coast (8)
Colorado River (5)
Lower Basin States and Mexico - Colorado River (7)
National (13)
North Coast (8)
North Lahontan (3)
Sacramento River (14)
San Francisco Bay (11)
San Joaquin River (11)
South Coast (9)
South Lahontan (2)
Tulare Lake (4)
Upper Basin States - Colorado River (6)

Reset

Search for:

CONTACT

Search the California Water Library

Type

Best Management Practice
Biological Opinion
Book/Textbook
Bulletin
Bulletin 118
California Water Plan
Case study
Conference proceedings
Congressional Testimony
Environmental Documents
Essay
Fact sheet
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) review findings
Guidance Document
Handbook/Guide
Issue Paper
Journal Article
Legal document
Legislation
Letter
Manual
Memo
Model
NGO Position Paper
Plan
Policy
Policy - state
Policy Brief
Report
Research Article
Research Brief
Science Panel Report
Strategy
Technical Report
Template
Textbook
Thesis
Water Right Decision
White Paper

Topic

Adaptive Management
Agriculture
Basic Information
California Water Fix/BDCP/Delta Conveyance
Cannabis
Climate Change
Drinking Water
Drought & Hydrology
Desalination
Ecosystem & Species Mgt
Ecosystem Restoration
Invasive Species
Wetland Mitigation
Environmental Justice
Fisheries
Flood Management
Fracking
Geochemistry
Geohydrology
Groundwater
Geochemistry
Geohydrology
History
Human Right to Water
Infrastructure
Integrated Regional Water Management
Landscape Reform
Levees
Modeling
People & Water
Policy
Planning & Management
Recycled Water
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Sanitation
Science Management
Storage
Stormwater
Transfers & Markets
Tribal Water Issues
Upper Watershed Management
Water & Energy
Water Project Operations
Water Rights, Water Law
Water Supply
Water Quality
Federal Water Quality
Non Point Pollution Sources
Point Pollution Sources
Pollutants
Salinity
State Water Quality
Water Quality Monitoring
Water Use & Efficiency
Uncategorized

Keywords

adaptive management
adjudicated basins
agricultural drainage
agriculture
agriculture water use and efficiency
allocations
anadromous fish
atmospheric rivers
basic information
basin characterization
benthic macroinvertebrates
best management practices (BMPs)
bioassessment
biological opinion (BiOp)
brine management
California Water Plan
cannabis
Central Valley
Central Valley Project (CVP)
climate change
cloud seeding
coastal aquifers
Colorado River
compaction
conjunctive use
debris flow
Delta conveyance
Delta Stewardship Council (DSC)
desalination
direct potable reuse
disadvantaged communities (DACs)
drinking water
drought
earthquake
economic analysis
ecosystem management
ecosystem restoration
endangered species
environmental justice
fisheries
flood management
floodplain restoration
flows
forest management
fracking
fugitive dust
funding
Glen Canyon Dam
Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)
Great Basin Aquifer
groundwater
Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program
groundwater contamination
groundwater dependent ecosystems
Groundwater Exchange
groundwater pumping impacts
groundwater recharge
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)
groundwater-surface water interaction
habitat restoration
history
human right to water
hydraulic fracturing
hydropower
infrastructure
Integrated Regional Water Management
interbasin flow
invasive species
irrigation
land use
levees
managed aquifer recharge (MAR) - also see Groundwater Recharge
mercury
microplastics
mitigation
modeling
monitoring
Monterey amendments
native fish
nitrates
nutrients
ocean acidification
oil and gas
outreach and engagement
pesticides
planning and management
pollutants
privatization
public trust doctrine
Quantification Settlement Agreement
reasonable use doctrine
recreation
recycled water
Regional Water Quality Control Plan
risk assessment
Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta
salinity
Salton Sea
science management
sea level rise
seawater intrusion
sediment
SGMA
snowpack
State Water Project (SWP)
storage
stormwater
streams
Subscription/Donation
subsidence
Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP)
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
Trading - See Water Markets
transboundary aquifers
Transfers - See Water Markets
tribal water issues
uncategorized
upper watershed management
urban water conservation
vernal ponds
wastewater
water and energy
water budget
water management - see planning and management
water markets
water pricing
water project operations
water quality
water rights
water supply
water supply forecasting
water transfers
water use efficiency
wetlands

Hydrological Region

Central Coast
Colorado River
Lower Basin States and Mexico - Colorado River
National
North Coast
North Lahontan
Sacramento River
San Francisco Bay
San Joaquin River
South Coast
South Lahontan
Tulare Lake
Upper Basin States - Colorado River

Basin

Acton Valley 4-005
Adobe Lake Valley 6-010
Ames Valley 7-016
Amos Valley 7-034
Antelope Valley 6-044
Arroyo Santa Rosa Valley 4-007
Arroyo Seco Valley 7-037
Avawatz Valley 6-026
Batiquitos Lagoon Valley 9-022
Bear Valley 8-009
Bessemer Valley 7-015
Bicycle Valley 6-025
Big Meadows Valley 8-007
Big Valley (Lake) 5-015
Borrego Valley - Ocotillo Wells 7-024.02
Bristol Valley 7-008
Broadwell Valley 6-032
Buck Ridge Fault Valley 7-054
Butte Valley 1-003
Cadiz Valley 7-007
Cady Fault Area 6-090
Cahuilla Valley 9-006
Calzona Valley 7-041
Campo Valley 9-028
Canebrake Valley 7-046
Carpinteria 3-018
Carrizo Plain 3-019
Carson Valley 6-006
Castac Lake Valley 5-029
Caves Canyon Valley 6-038
Chemehuevi Valley 7-043
Chocolate Valley 7-032
Cholame Valley 3-005
Chuckwalla Valley 7-005
Coachella Valley - Desert Hot Springs 7-021.04
Coachella Valley - Indio 7-021.01
Coachella Valley - Mission Creek 7-021.02
Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass 7-021.04
Coastal Plain of Los Angeles - Central 4-011.04
Coastal Plain of Los Angeles - Hollywood 4-011.02
Coastal Plain of Los Angeles - Santa Monica 4-011.01
Coastal Plain of Los Angeles - West Coast 4-011.03
Coastal Plain of Orange County 8-001
Coastal Plain of San Diego 9-033
Collins Valley 7-055
Conejo 4-010
Copper Mountain Valley 7-011
Corralitos - Pajaro Valley 3-002.01
Cottonwood Valley 9-027
Coyote Lake Valley 6-037
Coyote Wells Valley 7-029
Cronise Valley 6-035
Cuddeback Valley 6-050
Cuyama Valley 3-013
Dale Valley 7-009
Darwin Valley 6-057
Davies Valley 7-061
Deadman Valley - Deadman Lake 7-013.01
Deadman Valley - Surprise Spring 7-013.02
Death Valley 6-018
Deep Springs Valley 6-015
Denning Spring Valley 6-078
Downtown 2-040
East Salton Sea 7-033
Eel River Valley 1-010
El Cajon Valley 9-016
El Mirage Valley 6-043
Elsinore - Bedfored-Coldwater 8-004.02
Elsinore - Elsinore Valley 8-004.01
Escondido Valley 9-009
Fenner Valley 7-002
Fish Lake Valley 6-014
Fremont Valley 6-046
Gilroy-Hollister Valley - Llagas Area 3-003.01
Goldstone Valley 6-048
Goleta 3-016
Harper Valley 6-047
Helendale Fault Valley 7-048
Hemet Lake Valley 8-006
Hidden Valley 4-016
Imperial Valley 7-030
Indian Wells Valley - 6-054
Iron Ridge Area 7-050
Ivanpah Valley 6-030
Jacumba Valley 7-047
Johnson Valley - Soggy Lake 7-018.01
Johnson Valley - Upper Johnson Valley 7-018.02
Joshua Tree 7-062
Kane Wash Area 6-089
Kelso Valley 6-031
Lanfair Valley 7-001
Langford Valley - Irwin 6036.02
Langford Valley - Langford Well Lake 6-036.01
Langford Valley 6-036.02
Las Posas Valley 4-008
Lavic Valley 7-014
Leach Valley 6-027
Lockwood Valley 4-017
Long Valley 6-011
Los Osos Valley - Los Osos 3-008.01
Los Osos Valley - Warden Creek 3-008.02
Lost Horse Valley 7-051
Lower Kingston Valley 6-021
Lower Mojave River Valley 6-040
Lucerne Valley 7-019
Malibu Valley 4-022
Means Valley 7-017
Mesquite Valley 6-029
Middle Amargosa Valley - 6-020
Middle Mojave River Valley 6-041
Mission Valley 9-014
Modoc) 5-004
Morongo Valley 7-020
Morro Valley 3-041
Napa-Sonoma Valley - Napa-Sonoma Lowlands 2-002.03
Needles Valley 7-044
Ocotillo-Clark Valley 7-025
Ogilby Valley 7-035
Ojai Valley 4-002
Orocopia Valley - 7-031
Owens Valley - Fish Slough 6-012.02
Owens Valley 6-012.01
Owl Lake Valley 6-088
Pahrump Valley 6-028
Palo Verde Mesa 7-039
Palo Verde Valley 7-038
Pamo Valley 9-024
Panamint Valley 6-058
Peach Tree Valley 3-032
Petaluma Valley 2-001
Pilot Knob Valley 6-051
Pinto Valley 7-006
Pipes Canyon Fault Valley 7-049
Pittsburgh Plain 2-004
Piute Valley 7-045
Pleasant Valley 4-006
Potrero Valley 9-029
Poway Valley 9-013
Raymond 4-023
Red Pass Valley 6-024
Redding Area - Anderson 5-006.03
Redding Area - Bowman 5-006.01
Redding Area - Enterprise 5-006.04
Redding Area - Millville 5-006.05
Redding Area - South Battle Creek 5-006.06
Rice Valley 7-004
Riggs Valley 6-023
Russell Valley 4-020
Sacramento Valley - Antelope 5-021.54
Sacramento Valley - Bend 5-021.53
Sacramento Valley - Butte 5-021.70
Sacramento Valley - Colusa 5-021.52
Sacramento Valley - Corning 5-021.51
Sacramento Valley - Los Molinos 5-021.56
Sacramento Valley - North American (5-021.64)
Sacramento Valley - North Yuba 5-021.60
Sacramento Valley - Red Bluff 5-021.50
Sacramento Valley - Solano 5-021.66
Sacramento Valley - South American 5-021.65
Sacramento Valley - South Yuba 5-021.61
Sacramento Valley - Sutter 5-021.62
Sacramento Valley - Vina 5-021.57
Sacramento Valley - Wyandotte Creek 5-021.69
Sacramento Valley - Yolo 5021.67
Salinas Valley - 180/400 Foot Aquifer 3-004.01
Salinas Valley - Atascadero Area 3-004.11
Salinas Valley - East Side Aquifer 3-004.02
Salinas Valley - Forebay Aquifer 3-004.04
Salinas Valley - Langley Area 3-004.09
Salinas Valley - Monterey 3-004.10
Salinas Valley - Paso Robles Area 3-004.06
Salinas Valley - Upper Valley Aquifer 3-004.05
Saline Valley 6-017
Salt Wells Valley 6-053
San Antonio Creek Valley 3-014
San Dieguito Creek 9-012
San Elijo Valley 9-023
San Felipe Valley 7-027
San Fernando Valley 4-012
San Gabriel Valley 4-013
San Jacinto 8-005
San Joaquin Valley - Chowchilla 5-022.05
San Joaquin Valley - Cosumnes (5-022.16)
San Joaquin Valley - Delta-Mendota 5-022.07
San Joaquin Valley - East Contra Costa 5-022.19
San Joaquin Valley - Eastern San Joaquin 5-022.01
San Joaquin Valley - Kaweah 5-022.11
San Joaquin Valley - Kern 5-022.14
San Joaquin Valley - Kings 5-022.08
San Joaquin Valley - Madera 5-022.06
San Joaquin Valley - Merced 5-022.04
San Joaquin Valley - Modesto 5-022.02
San Joaquin Valley - Pleasant Valley 5-022.10
San Joaquin Valley - Tracy 5-022.15
San Joaquin Valley - Tulare Lake 5-022.12
San Joaquin Valley - Tule 5-022.13
San Joaquin Valley - Turlock 5-022.03
San Joaquin Valley - Westside 5-022.09
San Joaquin Valley - White Wolf 5-022.18
San Juan Valley 9-001
San Luis Obispo Valley 3-009
San Luis Rey Valley - Lower San Luis Rey Valley 9-007.02
San Luis Rey Valley - Upper San Luis Rey Valley 9-007.01
San Marcos Area 9-032
San Mateo Valley 9-002
San Onofre Valley 9-003
San Pasqual Valley 9-010
Santa Barbara 3-017
Santa Clara River Valley - Fillmore 4-004.05
Santa Clara River Valley - Mound 4-004.03
Santa Clara River Valley - Oxnard 4-004.02
Santa Clara River Valley - Piru 4-004.06
Santa Clara River Valley - Santa Clara River Valley East 4-004.07
Santa Clara River Valley - Santa Paula 4-004.04
Santa Clara Valley - East Bay Plain 2-009.04
Santa Clara Valley - Niles Cone 2-009.01
Santa Clara Valley - San Mateo Plain 2-009.03
Santa Clara Valley - Santa Clara 2-009.02
Santa Cruz Mid-County 3-001
Santa Margarita 3-027
Santa Maria River Valley - Arroyo Grande 3-012.02
Santa Maria River Valley - Santa Maria 3-012.01
Santa Maria River Valley 3-012.02
Santa Maria Valley 9-011
Santa Rosa Valley - Santa Rosa Plain 1-055.01
Santa Ynez River Valley 3-015
Scott River Valley 1-005
Searles Valley 6-052
Seven Oaks Valley 8-008
Shasta Valley 1-004
Sierra Valley 5-012.01
Silver Lake Valley 6-034
Simi Valley 4-009
Soda Lake Valley 6-033
South San Diego River Valley 9-015
Superior Valley 6-049
Temecula Valley 9-005
Terwilliger Valley 7-026
Thousand Oaks Area 4-019
Tule Lake 1-002-01
Twentynine Palms Valley 7-010
Ukiah Valley 1-052
Upper Kingston Valley 6-022
Upper Mojave River Valley 6-042
Upper Ojai Valley 4-001
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Chino 8-002.01
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Cucamonga 8-002.02
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Rialto-Colton 8-002.04
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Riverside-Arlington 8-002.03
Upper Santa Ana Valley - San Bernardino 8-002.06
Upper Santa Ana Valley - San Timoteo 8-002.08
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Temescal 8-002.09
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Yucaipa 8-002.07
Vallecito-Carrizo Valley 7-028
Ventura River Valley - Lower Ventura River 4-003.02
Ventura River Valley - Upper Ventura River 4-003.01
Vidal Valley 7-042
Ward Valley 7-003
Warren Valley 7-012
West Salton Sea
Wingate Valley 6-019
Yuma Valley 7-036

Delta Documents Primers on Cal Water Infrastructure, Water Rights and Government

Filter Results

Type

Topic

Keywords

Publisher

Basin

Hydrological Region

Search for:

Search the California Water Library

Type

Topic

Keywords

Hydrological Region

Basin