Optimizing the dammed: Water supply losses and fish habitat gains from dam removal in California

Journal of Environmental Management (Elsevier) | April 1st, 2014

Dams provide water supply, flood protection, and hydropower generation benefits, but also harm native species by altering the natural flow regime and degrading aquatic an

Dams provide water supply, flood protection, and hydropower generation benefits, but also harm native species by altering the natural flow regime and degrading aquatic and riparian habitat. Restoring some rivers reaches to free-flowing conditions may restore substantial environmental benefits, but at some economic cost. This study uses a systems analysis approach to preliminarily evaluate removing rim dams in California's Central Valley to highlight promising habitat and unpromising economic use tradeoffs for water supply and hydropower. CALVIN, an economic-engineering optimization model, is used to evaluate water storage and scarcity from removing dams. A warm and dry climate model for a 30-year period centered at 2085, and a population growth scenario for year 2050 water demands represent future conditions. Tradeoffs between hydropower generation and water scarcity to urban, agricultural, and instream flow requirements were compared with additional river kilometers of habitat accessible to anadromous fish species following dam removal. Results show that existing infrastructure is most beneficial if operated as a system (ignoring many current institutional constraints). Removing all rim dams is not beneficial for California, but a subset of existing dams are potentially promising candidates for removal from an optimized water supply and free-flowing river perspective. Removing individual dams decreases statewide delivered water by 0–2282 million cubic meters and provides access to 0 to 3200 km of salmonid habitat upstream of dams. The method described here can help prioritize dam removal, although more detailed, project-specific studies also are needed. Similarly, improving environmental protection can come at substantially lower economic cost, when evaluated and operated as a system.

Oroville Dam Safety Comprehensive Needs Assessment Summary

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | October 30th, 2020

Oroville Dam, located on the Feather River in Butte County, is a key facility of the California State Water Project (SWP). Completed in 1967, it is owned and operated by

Oroville Dam, located on the Feather River in Butte County, is a key facility of the California State Water Project (SWP). Completed in 1967, it is owned and operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). In February 2017, both the gated main spillway and the ungated emergency spillway suffered significant erosion scour damage while releasing flood waters that had flowed into Lake Oroville. Concerns for the stability of the spillway crest structures resulted in the temporary evacuation of 188,000 residents downstream of the dam. Over the next few months, flood waters were successfully managed by making controlled reservoir releases down the damaged gated main spillway through May 2017 when the gates were closed for the year and DWR began repairs to the two spillways. By the fall of 2018, the entire 3,000-foot-long chute for the gated main spillway had been completely reconstructed, and major erosion-resistant armoring had been added to the emergency spillway. The repairs resulted in making these two spillways robust structures meeting modern engineering standards. 

Oroville Dam: A key unit of the State Water Project

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 1st, 1973

Patterns, drivers, and a predictive model of dam removal cost in the United States

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution (Frontiers) | July 24th, 2023

Paying for California's Water System

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | May 31st, 2021

Paying for Infrastructure: California’s Choices

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | January 16th, 2009

PPIC’s At Issue series focuses on issues important for California now and in the future. Financing infrastructure has traditionally been difficult for the state, and cu

PPIC’s At Issue series focuses on issues important for California now and in the future. Financing infrastructure has traditionally been difficult for the state, and current economic woes are likely to make it even more challenging. In this At Issue, PPIC research director Ellen Hanak analyzes the impediments to infrastructure financing and describes funding reforms such as loosening the supermajority rules for local infrastructure funding, financing investment through user fees, and expanding public-private partnerships. She outlines how these reforms could improve the state’s ability to build for the future.

Paying it Forward: The Path Toward Climate-Safe Infrastructure in California

Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group | September 1st, 2018

Planning for America’s Water Infrastructure Needs

Stanford University | May 31st, 2018

Points of Interest Los Angeles Aqueduct System

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) | September 3rd, 1979

Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water Resources

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) | March 22nd, 2013

Chapter I – Principles for Federal Investments in Water Resources 1. Purpose and Scope 2. The Federal Objective 3. Guiding Principles A. Healthy and Resilient Ecosy

Chapter I – Principles for Federal Investments in Water Resources 1. Purpose and Scope 2. The Federal Objective 3. Guiding Principles A. Healthy and Resilient Ecosystems B. Sustainable Economic Development C. Floodplains D. Public Safety E. Environmental Justice F. Watershed Approach Chapter II – Requirements 1. General Requirements A. Evaluation Framework B. Best Available Science and Commensurate Level of Detail C. Collaboration D. Risk & Uncertainty i. Climate Change ii. Future Land Use iii. Adaptive Management E. Water Use F. Nonstructural Approaches G. International Concerns H. Design of Alternatives I. Transparency in Decision Making J. Plan Selection 2. Interagency Guidelines 3. Effective Date 4. Approval