Record of Decision, Trump Administration Action 5 Operations Plan for the Central Valley and State Water Projects, per Executive Order 14181

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | December 4th, 2025

On January 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14181 “Emergency Measures To Provide Water Resources In California And Improve Disaster Response I

On January 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14181 “Emergency Measures To Provide Water Resources In California And Improve Disaster Response In Certain Areas.” A Presidential Memorandum titled “Putting People Over Fish” was signed four days before the Executive Order and references a reliable water supply, but the specific direction to the CVP is found in Executive Order 14181. Section 2 of Executive Order 14181 requires, among other measures, (c) The Secretary of the Interior, including through the Bureau of Reclamation, shall utilize his discretion to operate the CVP to deliver more water and produce additional hydropower, including by increasing storage and conveyance, and jointly operating federal and state facilities, to high­need communities, notwithstanding any contrary State or local laws. The Bureau of Reclamation shall take all available measures to ensure that State agencies — including the California Department of Water Resources — do not interfere with the Bureau of Reclamation’s operation of the project to maximize water delivery to high­need communities or otherwise, including but not limited to the issuance of a new Record of Decision maximizing water deliveries and consistent with the 2020 Record of Decision. Subsection (g) calls for a “proposed plan, for review by the Secretaries, to appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind any regulations or procedures that unduly burden such projects and are not necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law.” This ROD implements initial actions in response to Executive Order 14181. Click here for the Reclamation Long Term Operations page,  here for response to the Trump Action 5 gambit from California Department of Water Resources, and here for the response from the State Water Resources Control Board

Reduction of Nitrates in Groundwater – Agricultural Expert Panel Report

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | September 9th, 2014

Recommendations to the State Water Resources Control Board pertaining to the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program The Agricultural Expert Panel (Panel) was convened to a

Recommendations to the State Water Resources Control Board pertaining to the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program The Agricultural Expert Panel (Panel) was convened to address thirteen questions posed by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). The questions were primarily technical in nature, and are abbreviated below. 1. How can risk to or vulnerability of groundwater best be determined in the context of a regulatory program such as the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP)? 2. Evaluate and develop recommendations for the current approaches taken to assessing risk to or vulnerability of groundwater. 3. How can risk to or vulnerability of surface water best be determined in the context of a regulatory program such as the ILRP? 4. Evaluate and develop recommendations for the current approaches taken to assessing risk to or vulnerability of surface water. 5. What management practices are expected to be implemented and under what circumstances for the control of nitrogen? 6. What management practices are recommended for consideration by growers when they are selecting practices to put in place for the control of nitrogen? 7. Evaluate and make recommendations regarding the usage of various nitrogen management and accounting practices. 8. Evaluate and make recommendations regarding the most effective methods for ensuring growers have the knowledge required for effectively implementing recommended management practices. 9. What measurements can be used to verify that the implementations of management practices for nitrogen are as effective as possible? 10. Evaluate and make recommendations regarding the usage of various verification measurements of nitrogen control. 11. Evaluate the relative merits, and make recommendations regarding the usage of, surface water measurement systems derived from either receiving water or a discharge monitoring approach to identify problem discharges. 12. Evaluate and make recommendations on how best to integrate the results of the Nitrogen Tracking and Reporting System Task Force with any above recommendation regarding management practices and verification measures. 13. Evaluate and make recommendations on the reporting requirements to report budgeting and recording of nitrogen application on a management block basis versus reporting aggregated numbers on a nitrate loading risk unit level.

Reference Guide to On-Farm Groundwater Recharge on Annual Cropland | Recommendations for Creating Waterbird Habitat Benefits

Nature Conservancy | May 1st, 2019

With the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requiring basins to balance water budgets and manage groundwater sustainably, there is an opportunity to demonstr

With the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requiring basins to balance water budgets and manage groundwater sustainably, there is an opportunity to demonstrate groundwater recharge with benefits to birds and people. A multiple-benefit approach brings together water managers, farmers, agencies and conservation groups to stabilize groundwater in a manner that provides greater water reliability for farms and communities while protecting ecosystems, including migratory bird habitat.

Refinement of Rice Water Consumptive Use During the Growing Season — Sacramento Valley

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | June 6th, 2018

The purpose of this study is to evaluate crop water use for the most commonly grown paddy rice variety grown in the Sacramento Valley, M206, based on field data collected

The purpose of this study is to evaluate crop water use for the most commonly grown paddy rice variety grown in the Sacramento Valley, M206, based on field data collected from 2007 through 2009, and from 2011 through 2013. M206 was identified by the University of California (UC) Cooperative Extension Farm Advisors as the most commonly grown rice variety in the study area. Phase I of this study was conducted by the University of California, Davis (UC Davis), under contract with DWR. A brief description of both Phase I and Phase II have been included here to provide orientation as the progression of the work and linkages between each phase regarding the study results. 

Refinement of Rice Water Consumptive Use During the Growing Season — Sacramento Valley Phase II — Cal-SIMETAW Model Study

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 6th, 2018

The purpose of this study is to evaluate crop water use for the most commonly grown paddy rice variety grown in the Sacramento Valley, M206, based on field data collected

The purpose of this study is to evaluate crop water use for the most commonly grown paddy rice variety grown in the Sacramento Valley, M206, based on field data collected from 2007 through 2009, and from 2011 through 2013. M206 was identified by the University of California (UC) Cooperative Extension Farm Advisors as the most commonly grown rice variety in the study area. Phase I of this study was conducted by the University of California, Davis (UC Davis), under contract with DWR. A brief description of both Phase I and Phase II have been included here to provide orientation as the progression of the work and linkages between each phase regarding the study results. 

Regional nitrate and pesticide trends in ground water in the eastern San Joaquin Valley, California

American Society of Agronomy (ASA) | September 18th, 2008

Protection of ground water for present and future use requires monitoring and understanding of the mechanisms controlling long-term quality of ground water. In this stu

Protection of ground water for present and future use requires monitoring and understanding of the mechanisms controlling long-term quality of ground water. In this study, spatial and temporal trends in concentrations of nitrate and pesticides in ground water in the eastern San Joaquin Valley, California, were evaluated to determine the long-term effects of agricultural and urban development on regional ground-water quality. Trends in concentrations of nitrate, the nematocide 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, and the herbicide simazine during the last two decades are generally consistent with known nitrogen fertilizer and pesticide use and with the position of the well networks in the regional ground-water fl ow system. Concentrations of nitrate and pesticides are higher in the shallow part of the aquifer system where domestic wells are typically screened, whereas concentrations are lower in the deep part of the aquifer system where public-supply wells are typically screened. Attenuation processes do not seem to significantly affect concentrations. Historical data indicate that concentrations of nitrate have increased since the 1950s in the shallow and deep parts of the aquifer system. Concentrations of nitrate and detection of pesticides in the deep part of the aquifer system will likely increase as the proportion of highly affected water contributed to these wells increases with time. Because of the time of travel between the water table and the deep part of the aquifer system, current concentrations in public-supply wells likely reflect the effects of 40- to 50-year-old management practices.

Remote sensing is a viable tool for mapping soil salinity in agricultural lands

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | April 7th, 2017

Replenishing Groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | April 1st, 2018

The San Joaquin Valley—which has the biggest imbalance between groundwater pumping and replenishment in the state—is ground zero for implementing the 2014 Sustainable

The San Joaquin Valley—which has the biggest imbalance between groundwater pumping and replenishment in the state—is ground zero for implementing the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Expanding groundwater recharge could help local water users bring their basins into balance and make a dent in the long-term deficit of nearly 2 million acre-feet per year. The experience with recharge in 2017?the first wet year since the enactment of SGMA?offers valuable insights in how to expand recharge. A survey of valley water districts’ current recharge efforts revealed strong interest in the practice, and a number of constraints. The following actions are needed to better capitalize on future opportunities: Clarify rules on water available for recharge. The State Water Board needs to develop an expeditious process for enabling water users to capture surface water when it is available. Beyond the legal aspects of establishing rights for diversion and storage, an essential part of this process is technical: developing a simple, rapid way to determine when river flows exceed water required for environmental purposes and downstream users. Evaluate infrastructure capacity. One of the key challenges for expanding recharge is that most available flows are in the northern part of the valley, while most of the overdraft?and best recharge lands?are in the south. In addition, these flows are mainly available for just a few months. A top priority is to evaluate opportunities for improving the use of existing infrastructure (conveyance facilities, surface reservoirs, and recharge basins) and determine where additional investments are warranted. A big bottleneck is likely to be regional conveyance, which is inadequate for capturing and moving high flows to suitable recharge locations. Improve recharge on farmland. Active recharge on farmland may be one of the most promising ways to capture water cost-effectively in wetter years, but it is low relative to its potential. Significantly ramping up this practice will require addressing a suite of technical issues and establishing incentives. Address regulatory barriers. State and federal agencies need to improve processes for approving construction of new recharge projects, moving recharge water through their conveyance facilities, and enabling more flexibility in where water is stored. Water managers and growers also need guidelines from the state for implementing on-farm recharge in ways that are consistent with water quality rules. Strengthen groundwater accounting. Better accounting of water going into and out of groundwater basins is key to sustainable management. It is also needed for developing incentives for growers to recharge, encouraging recharge partnerships, and informing decisions on new investments. Making the most of recharge opportunities will require high levels of cooperation among a wide variety of stakeholders. Local and regional partnerships?for capturing and moving water efficiently, making new investments, and devising projects that bring multiple benefits?are key to helping the region manage this critical resource over the long-term.

Report of the Governor's Task Force on the Acreage Limitation Problem

State of California | January 4th, 1968

Report on Feasibility of Feather River Project and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Diversion Projects Proposed as Features of the California Water Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | May 17th, 1951