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

Ensuring the Public Trust

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 1st, 2012

The California Supreme Court's recognition of the public trust doctrine as an integral part of California's water rights system was one of the momentous events in the h

The California Supreme Court's recognition of the public trust doctrine as an integral part of California's water rights system was one of the momentous events in the history of California (if not United States) environmental policy.' The court looked back to the foundational purposes of the public trust to hold that there are limits to the sovereign power to privatize the rights to use the waters of the state, and it looked forward to conclude that prudent development and sustainable use of California's water resources require the state to retain authority to protect the public trust for the benefit of all Californians. The court also defined the public trust as an environmental baseline that both protects the traditional interests of navigation, commerce, and fisheries and embodies the contemporary scientific and popular understanding that there are ecological limits to the diversion and use of water for consumptive purposes. The lessons of National Audubon Society v. Superior Court2 are now a commonplace of water rights law, appearing not just in administrative orders and judicial opinions, but also in standard water rights terms, policy studies, and legislation.

Estuary News, February 1998

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | February 15th, 1998

Estuary News, June 2001

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | June 15th, 2001

Executive Order N-4-23

State of California | March 10th, 2023

Executive Order N-7-23

State of California | May 17th, 2023

Facts on the Water Rights Question in the Central Valley Project

California Farm Bureau (CFB) | March 11th, 1948

Federal Reserved Water Rights and Groundwater: Quantity, Quality, and Pore Space

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | February 8th, 2018

Tribal rights to groundwater have not been legally established to the same extent as rights to other natural resources (e.g., surface water, timber, minerals). A March 2

Tribal rights to groundwater have not been legally established to the same extent as rights to other natural resources (e.g., surface water, timber, minerals). A March 2017 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the rights of a California Indian tribe (the Agua Caliente band of Cahuilla Indians) to groundwater beneath the tribe's reservation in the Coachella Valley. In November 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision; the case now proceeds to other phases that may partially shape this ruling's significance. This is the first case in which an appellate court has held that a tribe's "reserved" rights under the Winters doctrine apply to groundwater. Pursuant to Winters, when Congress reserves land for a reservation, it also reserves a right to water necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the reservation was created. For decades, tribal reserved rights for surface water have been established and have required settlements between the federal government (as authorized by Congress), tribes, and nonfederal users. Thus, some have raised concerns about the implications of interpreting Winters rights to include groundwater. This Insight explores three aspects of groundwater relevant to Agua Caliente: quantity, quality, and "pore space." The legal outcome may affect how groundwater is allocated among tribal and nontribal interests and may influence groundwater allocations at other federal reservations. The Supreme Court has not declared outright that groundwater is subject to the Winters doctrine, but declining to review the Ninth Circuit decision essentially upheld phase one of the three-phase case: a federally reserved right to the groundwater resource for the tribe. Phase two will address whether the tribe has the right to receive groundwater of a certain quality from the aquifer and whether it owns the pore space beneath tribal lands. Phase three will determine the quantity of groundwater to which the tribe is entitled, pursuant to its reserved rights. The outcome of phases two and three could have implications for expanding the scope of federal preemption of state water law. It also could affect how much groundwater is available for nontribal water agencies and water districts and those entities' ability to store water in an aquifer beneath federally reserved lands. Congress has authority over federal water law and could influence this legal framework.

Five Guiding Principles for Effective Voluntary Agreements

University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) | January 3rd, 2024

California has increasingly emphasized efforts to develop voluntary agreements (VAs) with water users as a means of achieving regulatory goals in certain watersheds. In t

California has increasingly emphasized efforts to develop voluntary agreements (VAs) with water users as a means of achieving regulatory goals in certain watersheds. In theory, a VA can combine the protectiveness of a regulatory backstop with the creativity and flexibility of a negotiated deal to produce outcomes as good as, or better than, those achievable through strict application of regulatory requirements alone. However, reality has not always measured up to this ideal. This policy paper uses the Bay-Delta watershed as a case study to inform five principles to guide the appropriate use and evaluation of VAs.

Fixing the Flawed Colorado River Compact

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | June 16th, 2023