Executive Order N-4-23

State of California | March 10th, 2023

Executive Order N-7-23

State of California | May 17th, 2023

Extreme Precipitation-Temperature Scaling in California: The Role of Atmospheric Rivers

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | July 25th, 2023

Factors and Processes Affecting Delta Levee System Vulnerability

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | December 1st, 2016

The authors appraised factors and processes related to human activities and high water, subsidence, and seismicity. Farming and drainage of peat soils over time has cause

The authors appraised factors and processes related to human activities and high water, subsidence, and seismicity. Farming and drainage of peat soils over time has caused a gradual sinking which contributed to internal levee failures. Although these subsidence rates have decreased with time, they still contribute to levee instability. Additional data is needed to assess spatial and temporal effects of subsidence caused by peat thinning and deformation. Since the mid-1970s large-scale, State investments in levee upgrades have increased conformance, however accounts continue to conflict on how these investments correspond to the numbers of failures. Both modeling and history suggest that the projected increases of high-flow frequency associated with climate change will increase levee-failures rates. Quantification of this increased threat requires further research. A reappraisal of seismic threats resulted in updated ground motion estimates for multiple faults and earthquake occurrence frequencies. The immediate seismic threat, liquefaction, is the sudden loss of strength due to an increase in the pressure of the pore fluid and corresponding loss of contact forces. However, levees damaged during an earthquake that do not immediately fail, may eventually breach. Consequences for future levee failure are estimated to cost up to billions of dollars. The analysis of future risks will benefit from more detailed descriptions of levee strength and upgrades, consideration of subsidence, climate change, and earthquake threats. Ecosystem benefits of levee habitats in this highly altered system are thin. Better recognition and coordination is needed among the creation of high value habitats, levee needs, costs, benefits of levee improvements, and breaches.  

Flood Control System Status Report

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 12th, 2011

This Flood Control System Status Report (FCSSR) describes the current status (physical condition) of SPFC facilities at a systemwide level. DWR prepared the FCSSR to meet

This Flood Control System Status Report (FCSSR) describes the current status (physical condition) of SPFC facilities at a systemwide level. DWR prepared the FCSSR to meet the legislative requirements of California Water Code Section 9120, and to contribute to development of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP). The CVFPP will guide future State investments through projects to address identified problems in the SPFC. The FCSSR is primarily intended to present information on the physical condition of SPFC facilities, and to help guide future inspection, evaluation, reconstruction, and improvement of the facilities. Information contained in the FCSSR should not be used to predict how a levee orassociated facilities may perform in a specific flood event. More detailed information (such as additional geotechnical explorations and analyses at a greater frequency) would be necessary to meet other purposes, such as assessing whether a levee could be certified under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards to provide base flood protection under the National Flood Insurance Program.

Flood Management in California

Water, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) | February 14th, 2012

California’s development and success have been shaped by its ability to manage floods. This management has varied over the history of California’s economic and p

California’s development and success have been shaped by its ability to manage floods. This management has varied over the history of California’s economic and political development and continues in various forms today. California will always have flood problems. A range of options are available to aid in flood management problems and have been used over time. These options can be contrasted with flood management elsewhere and the types of options used to manage other types of hazards in California, such as earthquakes, wildfires, and droughts. In the future, flood management in California will require greater reliance on local funding and leadership, reflecting diminished federal and state funding, with more effective state and federal guidance. Effective flood management will also tend to integrate flood management with actions to achieve environmental and other water supply objectives, both to gain revenues from a broader range of beneficiaries as well as to make more efficient use of land and water in a state where both are often scarce.

Flood Plain Information Mojave River (Vicinity of Victorville) San Bernardino County, California

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) | April 15th, 1969

Flood Plain Information, Montecito Streams, Vicinity of Montecito, Santa Barbara, California

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) | June 28th, 1974

Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Flood Risk and Management of California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Levee System

University of California, Santa Cruz (UC Santa Cruz) | September 15th, 2020

Flood Runoff in Relation to Water Vapor Transport by Atmospheric Rivers Over the Western United States, 1949–2015

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | November 29th, 2017

Atmospheric rivers (ARs) have a significant role in generating floods across the western United States. We analyze daily streamflow for water years 1949 to 2015 from 5,

Atmospheric rivers (ARs) have a significant role in generating floods across the western United States. We analyze daily streamflow for water years 1949 to 2015 from 5,477 gages in relation to watervapor transport by ARs using a 6 h chronology resolved to 2.5° latitude and longitude. The probability that an AR will generate 50 mm/d of runoff in a river on the Pacific Coast increases from 12% when daily mean water vapor transport, DVT, is greater than 300 kg m
1s
1to 54% when DVT>600 kg m
1s
1. Extreme runoff, represented by the 99th quantile of daily values, doubles from 80 mm/d at DVT = 300 kg m
1s
1to160 mm/d at DVT = 500 kg m
1s
1. Forecasts and predictions of water vapor transport by atmospheric rivers can support flood risk assessment and estimates of future flood frequencies and magnitude in the western United States.