Moving Forward Effort: Phase 1 Report

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | May 1st, 2015

In 2012, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), in partnership with the seven Colorado River Basin States (Basin States) and in collaboration with a wide spectrum of

In 2012, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), in partnership with the seven Colorado River Basin States (Basin States) and in collaboration with a wide spectrum of Colorado River Basin (Basin) stakeholders, published the most comprehensive study of future Basin supply and demand ever undertaken. The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Basin Study) confirmed that, in the absence of timely action, there are likely to be significant shortfalls between projected water supplies and demands in coming decades. The Basin Study also confirmed that a wide range of solutions are needed to mitigate and adapt to such shortfalls, which are likely to affect each sector (agricultural, municipal, energy, and environmental, for example) dependent on the Colorado River and its tributaries. In response to the findings of the Basin Study, in May 2013, Reclamation and the Basin States, in collaboration with the Ten Tribes Partnership and conservation organizations, initiated the Moving Forward effort to build on future considerations and next steps identified in the Basin Study. The Moving Forward effort builds upon and enhances the broad, inclusive stakeholder process demonstrated in the Basin Study with an ultimate goal of identifying actionable steps to address projected water supply and demand imbalances that have broad-based support and provide a wide-range of benefits. The Moving Forward effort is being conducted in a phased approach. Phase 1, which was funded by Reclamation and the Basin States, began with the formation of a Coordination Team and three multi-stakeholder workgroups that focus on water conservation, reuse, and environmental and recreational flows. The Phase 1 Report documents the activities and outcomes of the workgroups during this phase. Commenting on the information provided in the Phase 1 Report is encouraged. Written comments should be submitted within 90 days following the release of this report. The comments will be summarized and posted to the Moving Forward website and will be considered in future Moving Forward phases. Instructions for submitting comments are provided at [this link].

Multi-sensor remote sensing captures geometry and slow-to-fast sliding transition of the 2017 Mud Creek landslide

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | August 14th, 2025

Click here for the USGS California Science Center page about the Mud Creek landslide

Click here for the USGS California Science Center page about the Mud Creek landslide

Multiobjective Water Resource Planning

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | January 1st, 1977

Published by the American Geophysical Union as part of the Water Resources Monograph Series, Volume 4. This volume, the fourth in the American Geophysical Union's Wate

Published by the American Geophysical Union as part of the Water Resources Monograph Series, Volume 4. This volume, the fourth in the American Geophysical Union's Water Resources Monograph Series, is an exposition of multiobjective water resource planning. The multiobjective approach is, I believe, an approach that will enable water resource planners to improve substantially the social value of the projects that they build or, in the case of management plans, implement. As a not unwelcome side effect the multiobjective approach should provide a more satisfying professional life to planners and engineers. It requires more effort in the early stages of planning than simpler criteria such as the traditional benefit-cost analysis that it replaces, but at the same time, multiobjective analysis frees the planner from the burden of designing projects that are not fully representative of the social, economic, environmental, and other objectives that govern public investment in water resources.

Multiscale drivers of extreme southern California flooding: ENSO, MJO, North Pacific jet, and atmospheric rivers

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | November 20th, 2025

Extreme rainfall and flooding, driven by a powerful atmospheric river (AR) and a persistent Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), hit Southern California in February 2024 duri

Extreme rainfall and flooding, driven by a powerful atmospheric river (AR) and a persistent Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), hit Southern California in February 2024 during the 2023–2024 El Niño, affecting over 10 million people. ARs are key contributors to extreme rainfall and flooding along the U.S. West Coast. Although the AR-MJO link has been documented, its spatio-temporal variability remains a major forecasting and risk-management challenge. Combining precipitation, stream gauge and demographic data, we quantify the physical drivers and population exposure to this extreme event. Leveraging a Lagrangian MJO precipitation tracking algorithm, we unravel the multiscale interactions responsible for the AR’s development. El Niño favored a large, long-lived MJO that interacted with the North Pacific Jet (NPJ) over more than three weeks. The MJO convective outflow modulated the NPJ by inducing negative potential vorticity advection along the tropopause. The ensuing NPJ extension and acceleration induced explosive cyclogenesis, whose AR-driven moisture transport resulted in extreme rainfall.

Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the Orange County Water District Including a Feasibility Analysis of the Potential Consolidation of Orange County Water District and Municipal Water District of Orange County

Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County | November 15th, 2024

Napa Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Napa County | January 31st, 2022

National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion for the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | June 3rd, 2009

The purpose of this document is to present NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) biological and conference opinion (Opinion), about whether the U.S. Burea

The purpose of this document is to present NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) biological and conference opinion (Opinion), about whether the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation) proposed long-term operations of the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated in coordination with the State Water Project (SWP; hereafter referred to as CVP/SWP operations, the proposed action, or the project), is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the following species: Endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, hereafter referred to as winter-run) Threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha, hereafter referred to as spring-run) Threatened Central Valley (CV) steelhead (O. mykiss) Threatened Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead (O. mykiss) Threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris, hereafter referred to as Southern DPS of green sturgeon) Endangered Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca, hereafter referred to as Southern Residents) or destroy or adversely modify the designated critical habitat of the above salmon and steelhead species, or proposed critical habitat for Southern DPS of green sturgeon. This Opinion is based on the best scientific and commercial information available.

Natural infrastructure in sustaining global urban freshwater ecosystem services

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | October 21st, 2021

Rapid urbanization throughout the globe increases demand for fresh water and the ecosystem services associated with it. This need is conventionally met through the constr

Rapid urbanization throughout the globe increases demand for fresh water and the ecosystem services associated with it. This need is conventionally met through the construction of infrastructure. Natural infrastructure solutions have increased to provide freshwater ecosystem services, but little global research has examined the intricate relationships between built and natural infrastructure for providing freshwater ecosystem services to cities across the globe. Using network analysis, here we examine the interrelationships between built and natural infrastructure in 2,113 watersheds for 317 cities worldwide, focusing on four key freshwater ecosystem services: freshwater provision, sediment regulation, flood mitigation and hydropower production. Our results indicate that protected wetlands contribute to sustaining freshwater provision to cities. Forest cover in protected areas can improve the capacity of large dams in reducing sediment loads and producing hydropower, but cities mainly depend on reduced impervious surfaces and more green spaces within urban areas for flood mitigation. Improved understandings of the role of natural infrastructure in urban water networks must underpin strategic decision-making to sustainably provide freshwater ecosystem services to global cities.

Navigating a Flood of Information Evaluating and Integrating Climate Science into Groundwater Planning in California

Union of Concerned Scientists | November 1st, 2017

In early 2017, northern California experienced record-setting levels of precipitation. The amount of rain and snow from October 2016 through February 2017 was the greates

In early 2017, northern California experienced record-setting levels of precipitation. The amount of rain and snow from October 2016 through February 2017 was the greatest in the 122 years of California record-keeping. As the reservoir behind Oroville Dam quickly filled to capacity, a torrent of excess water was let out through the main spillway. Shortly thereafter the spillway began to collapse, leading to massive soil erosion and concerns that the erosion could undermine the dam itself. Fears of a catastrophic dam breach led to the evacuation of around 180,000 residents downstream from the dam. While we do not know how much climate change contributed to this particular event, we do know that climate change is making extreme events more common (Black et al. 2016; Mote et al. 2016; Otto 2016). While reports indicate that management failures may have played in an important role in the Oroville disaster, it is also true that this event took place in the context of extreme weather, and that climate change is increasing pressure on structures and communities. This finding is not limited to highprofile infrastructure such as the Oroville Dam. Much of our water infrastructure, management tools, institutions, and planning mechanisms are not designed for the increased magnitude and frequency of such extremes—making the state, its environment, and its water resources vulnerable to the changes we are likely to see in the coming decades. In California, groundwater contributes more than half of the state’s water supply during dry years (DWR 2009). Therefore, understanding the impacts that climate change will have on this critical resource will be of particular importance for the state’s water and food security over the long term. To that end, Governor Jerry Brown issued Executive Order B-30-15 that, along with setting ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets, requires state agencies take climate change into account in their planning and investment decisions. In addition, California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), passed by the legislature in 2014, requires that Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) explicitly assess the impacts of climate change and incorporate these assessments into their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). Under the legislation, GSAs must develop and implement GSPs to achieve sustainable groundwater management in all high- and medium-priority groundwater basins in the state. Within these plans, GSAs are required to provide “[p]rojected water budget information for population, population growth, climate change, and sea level rise” (CWR 354.18(d)(3)). Additionally, projected water budgets must “identify the uncertainties of these projected water budget components,” including uncertainties in projected hydrology, water demand, and surface water supply resulting from sea level rise, land use changes, population growth, and climate change (CWR 354.18(c)(3)). To meet these regulatory requirements, plans must “rely on the best available information and best available science to quantify the water budget for the basin” (CWR 354.18(e)). Yet, it can be difficult to identify the best approach to incorporating climate change into local plans. The purpose of this white paper is to assist in that challenging task. The consequences of not incorporating climate change into water planning can be severe, leading to unforeseen costs and even threatening lives. It is therefore the intention of this white paper to: • provide water managers and other decision-makers across the state with an overview of climate models, their component parts, and key terminology • provide a framework for evaluating and comparing the various approaches currently employed by the state and federal agencies to incorporating climate change into state-level water planning documents • recommend a four-step process to incorporate future climate projections into local GSPs Recognizing the importance of climate change impacts on the state’s water supply, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has devoted a significant amount of time and expertise to integrating climate change into water planning. In 2012, DWR convened the Climate Change Technical Advisory Group (DWR CCTAG) to advise DWR on the scientific aspects of climate change, the impact of climate change on water resources, the use and creation of planning approaches and analytical tools, and the development of adaptation responses. The DWR CCTAG released a report in 2015, Perspectives and Guidance for Climate Change Analysis, which makes several recommendations for future work. One central theme is the need to develop guidance and support for water managers and planners. Factoring climate change into water management decisions requires future projections of how climate change will impact water-relevant factors such as temperature and precipitation—projections that are generally derived from global climate models. However, incorporating climate change into water planning for any given community or groundwater basin can be difficult, not only because of the technical expertise required to do so, but also because the effects of climate change are spatially and temporally variable. Although the scientific community has high confidence in a key set of variables for the planet as a whole, translating global estimates of climate change to specific geographical areas creates uncertainty. Fortunately, there are tools and methods to address uncertainty. As is the case for other natural phenomena that are difficult to predict with precision, such as earthquakes, uncertainty cannot be an excuse for inaction. Scientific and technical tools can substantially assist in creating plans that cope with an uncertain future. This white paper does not directly address the role of hydrologic models themselves, but rather addresses how climate change information can be incorporated into hydrologic models as water managers seek to comply with the requirements of SGMA. The process of incorporating climate change into water management decisions has several steps, starting with running global climate models to produce future climate projections, which are then used as inputs to hydrologic models (Figure 1). We recognize that GSAs are likely to engage at different levels of technical sophistication with climate data and that the majority will seek out the services of technical experts. Ultimately, it is our intent that this white paper equip water managers with sufficient knowledge about climate change projections to understand, evaluate, and direct the work of the technical experts and consultants. Using appropriate climate change information is vital to ensuring that water managers capture potential future water resource conditions. This white paper is organized into three main sections. The first section provides a general overview of climate models, including their strengths and limitations and the type of information they can provide, and describes a framework for incorporating their output into management decisions. The second section addresses how to incorporate climate change into planning involving imported water supplies. The third section turns to planning for local water supplies and proposes a process for incorporating appropriate climate change data into GSPs.

Navigating Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment (CLEE) | March 28th, 2018

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), passed in 2014, recognizes and addresses connections between surface water and groundwater. The st

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), passed in 2014, recognizes and addresses connections between surface water and groundwater. The statute is California’s first statewide law to explicitly reflect the fact that surface water and groundwater are frequently interconnected and that groundwater management can impact groundwater-dependent ecosystems, surface water flows, and the beneficial uses of those flows. As such, SGMA partially remedies the historically problematic practice of treating groundwater and surface water as legally distinct resources. SGMA requires groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to manage groundwater to avoid six undesirable results, including significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of surface water. While this aspect of SGMA is clearly important, significant uncertainties exist regarding how GSAs will actually define and achieve this goal. Addressing SGMA’s requirements for groundwater-surface water interactions will be difficult. Defining the issues at stake in any given basin, let alone successfully balancing the range of uncertainties and potentially conficting interests, will pose challenges for many GSAs. No clear, pre-defned formula exists to guide GSAs in determining what significant and unreasonable depletions of interconnected surface water will be, or whether planned actions will sufficiently avoid them. Yet they are required to do so. Many GSAs will face pressure to aggressively address impacts on surface water in their basin. Many will face equal or greater pressure not to draw the line. Nevertheless, it will fall to the GSAs to make a determination, and to defend it in their groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs). Therefore, GSAs will likely take on some level of risk—of successful political opposition to their GSP, of successful legal challenges to their GSP, of their GSP performing ineffectively, or of all of these outcomes. Given the aggressive timeline inherent to SGMA, addressing this risk early will be crucial for preserving management options. Challenges and risk are not the whole story, however. The process of addressing groundwater-surface water interactions also ofders GSAs an opportunity to help communities and other stakeholders resolve, or avoid, difficult conflicts, and to do so in lasting ways. While California law has only recently begun to seriously address conflicts between surface and groundwater uses, those conflicts have been occurring for decades, and in some places for over a century. SGMA, in other words, did not create conflict between groundwater pumping and beneficial uses of surface water; instead it created an opportunity—as well as an obligation—to respond to those challenges. Embracing that opportunity will not be easy, but GSAs that take SGMA as an opportunity to resolve longstanding issues can do lasting good. The research presented here examines some of the legal and institutional questions that will inevitably arise as GSAs seek to address groundwater-surface water interactions under SGMA. The core goal of this report is to help parties identify and address these questions, and ultimately to let GSAs and stakeholders manage groundwater-surface water interactions proactively and effectively.