Fill Mead First: a technical assessment

Utah State University | November 10th, 2019

The Fill Mead First (FMF) plan would establish Lake Mead reservoir as the primary water storage facility of the main-stem Colorado River and would relegate Lake

The Fill Mead First (FMF) plan would establish Lake Mead reservoir as the primary water storage facility of the main-stem Colorado River and would relegate Lake Powell reservoir to a secondary water storage facility to be used only when Lake Mead is full. The objectives of the FMF plan are to re-expose some of Glen Canyon’s sandstone walls that are now inundated, begin the process of re-creating a riverine ecosystem in Glen Canyon, restore a more natural stream-flow, temperature, and sediment-supply regime of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon ecosystem, and reduce system-wide water losses caused by evaporation and movement of reservoir water into ground-water storage. The FMF plan would be implemented in three phases. Phase I would involve lowering Lake Powell to the minimum elevation at which hydroelectricity can still be produced (called minimum power pool elevation): 3490 ft asl (feet above sea level). At this elevation, the water surface area of Lake Powell is approximately 77 mi2, which is 31% of the surface area when the reservoir is full. Phase II of the FMF plan would involve lowering Lake Powell to dead pool elevation (3370 ft asl), abandoning hydroelectricity generation, and releasing water only through the river outlets. The water surface area of Lake Powell at dead pool is approximately 32 mi2 and is 13% of the reservoir surface area when it is full. Implementation of Phase III would necessitate drilling new diversion tunnels around Glen Canyon Dam in order to eliminate all water storage at Lake Powell. In this paper, we summarize the FMF plan and identify critical details about the plan’s implementation that are presently unknown. We estimate changes in evaporation losses and ground-water storage that would occur if the FMF plan was implemented, based on review of existing data and published reports. We also discuss significant river-ecosystem issues that would arise if the plan was implemented.

Fillmore Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Fillmore and Piru Basins Groundwater Sustainability Agency | December 16th, 2021

The Fillmore Basin (the Basin) is managed (along with the upslope Piru Basin) by the Fillmore and Piru Basins Groundwater Sustainability Agency (the Agency). The Basin is

The Fillmore Basin (the Basin) is managed (along with the upslope Piru Basin) by the Fillmore and Piru Basins Groundwater Sustainability Agency (the Agency). The Basin is planned to remain sustainable over the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) implementation and sustainability period based on the current understanding of historical, current (2019), and projected (2022 through 2072) groundwater conditions in relation to the sustainability indicators specified in SGMA. A sustainability indicator refers to any of the effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin that, when significant and unreasonable, cause undesirable results. The Agency, with consideration of feedback from active stakeholder engagement, has identified and planned for the prevention of significant and unreasonable undesirable results.

Final Amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KRGSA) Plan Area

Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KRGSA) | July 22nd, 2022

In January 2020, the Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KRGSA) submitted the original KRGSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) to the Department of Water Re

In January 2020, the Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KRGSA) submitted the original KRGSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The KRGSA GSP was one of five GSPs that were submitted through a Coordination Agreement to collectively cover the entire Kern County Subbasin. In January 2022, DWR sent a letter to the Kern County Subbasin GSAs that provided an evaluation of the Subbasin GPSs and determined that the GSPs were collectively “incomplete” in meeting all SGMA requirements (Determination Letter). DWR noted three separate deficiencies in the collective GSPs and provided Corrective Actions to address the deficiencies. This Amended KRGSA GSP has been prepared to supplement the original 2020 KRGSA GSP in response to DWR comments. Amended sections are incorporated into the original KRGSA GSP to produce one complete document. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7

Final Groundwater Assessment Study: A Status Report on the Use of Groundwater in the Service Area of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) | September 3rd, 2007

Final Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Yucaipa Groundwater Subbasin

San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District | January 27th, 2022

The Yucaipa Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), acting as the GSA for the Yucaipa Subbasin (Plan Area, Subbasin), developed this Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GS

The Yucaipa Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), acting as the GSA for the Yucaipa Subbasin (Plan Area, Subbasin), developed this Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in compliance with the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) GSP Regulations. The Yucaipa Subbasin lies within the Upper Santa Ana River Basin Hydrologic Region (DWR Basin Number 8-002.07) and underlies an area of approximately 25,300 acres under portions of the cities of Calimesa, Redlands, and Yucaipa, as well as unincorporated San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. DWR designated the Yucaipa Subbasin a high priority basin based primarily on its reliance on groundwater for water supply. However, this Subbasin is not in a state of critical overdraft. Under SGMA, GSAs “have the responsibility for adopting a Plan that defines the basin setting and establishes criteria that will maintain or achieve sustainable groundwater management.” The requirement of the GSP is to maintain or achieve sustainable groundwater management in the Yucaipa Subbasin by 2042. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Final Mojave Region Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

Mojave Water Agency (MWA) | June 1st, 2014

Final Sensitive Beneficial Use Literature Review (Task 3.1.1)

Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-Salts) | May 16th, 2023

Final Urban Water Management Plan Goleta Water District

Goleta Water District (GWD) | December 20th, 2005

Financial Statement Analysis of CVP Contractors

Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force (Delta Vision) | July 20th, 2008

This report provides an analysis of the condensed financial statements of the 10 largest Central Valley Project (CVP) irrigation contractors in the San Joaquin Valley (Va

This report provides an analysis of the condensed financial statements of the 10 largest Central Valley Project (CVP) irrigation contractors in the San Joaquin Valley (Valley). The 10 were selected because of their size measured by CVP water deliveries, relative to both aggregate CVP deliveries in the Valley and for all of California. The report includes, for those contractors, a summary of those financial statements for eight years, respective net capital repayment obligations, and acre-feet (AF) of water delivered. This is the third of several written reports which ENTRIX will complete relative to CVP Financing and Repayment Issues. Subsequent reports will include an analysis and discussion of the generation and distribution of hydroelectric power from CVP facilities and a comprehensive document summarizing revised forms of all reports submitted.

Financing Delta Improvements and Environmental Mitigation

California Research Bureau (CRB) | September 1st, 2008

Resolution of the Delta’s water supply, water quality, and fish problems may involve building various structures, possibly including gates, pumps, canals, levees, and d

Resolution of the Delta’s water supply, water quality, and fish problems may involve building various structures, possibly including gates, pumps, canals, levees, and dams, and undertaking landscaping rearrangements to improve habitat for several species of flora and fauna. Resolution also involves changing water flow regimes in ways that would make more or less water, but probably less, available for human uses. This work and these changes will cost serious money. Cost estimates for many of these actions have not yet been developed. This paper explores approaches to financing these “improvements” and “mitigations.” While a little abstract, this is abstraction that matters. It will determine from whose pockets a good deal of money will come. California has a long history of financing water projects. The first section of this paper reviews this history, in hopes of identifying water-financing principles that might be adapted to Delta improvements and mitigation. Some deep-seated controversies about how Delta improvements should be financed have roots in this history, and it may be helpful to point them out. A core idea in California’s approach to financing water projects is that beneficiaries should pay for them. Decades ago, this was a straightforward proposition – people or water districts should pay for the necessary dams, canals, and pumps and the costs of operating them in proportion to the amount of water they received. In the current age of rising environmental sensitivity, it is a little muddier. An alternative formulation that applies, at least crudely, to housing developments and highway projects, is that project proponents should pay to mitigate at least some of the environmental harm that their project is likely to cause. The second section of this paper explores this controversial subject. It seems unlikely that any consensus can be reached about how to finance facilities in the Delta without reaching some agreement about how to deal with this matter. This paper was first issued in July, 2008. This version contains a few clarifications made in response to the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s reviewers. The author is grateful for their suggestions.