California’s Water: An LAO Primer

Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) | October 22nd, 2008

California’s water delivery system is facing a series of challenges due in part to a combination of increasingly variable weather conditions, legal requirements, and sy

California’s water delivery system is facing a series of challenges due in part to a combination of increasingly variable weather conditions, legal requirements, and system operation and conveyance constraints. These challenges affect water availability, reliability, and delivery. Recent public and private efforts have sought ways to address these challenges. These measures include proposals to increase water through groundwater storage, surface storage, infrastructure changes, and system operation improvements, among others. This report provides, through a “quick reference” document relying heavily on charts to present information, a snapshot of water in California, including: (1) An Overview of California’s Water Governance; (2) Water Supply, Source, and Delivery; (3) How Do We Finance Water Projects? (4) What Drives the Cost of Water?, and (5) Issues for Legislative Consideration

Central Valley Project Municipal and Industrial Water Shortage Policy Guidelines and Procedures

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | February 2nd, 2017

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared the Central Valley Project (CVP) Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Water Shortage Policy (WSP) Environmental Impact Stat

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared the Central Valley Project (CVP) Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Water Shortage Policy (WSP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential impacts of CVP M&I WSP alternatives. A Record of Decision was signed on November 13, 2015, to implement Alternative 4 (Appendix A), Updated M&I WSP (preferred alternative). The purposes of the M&I WSP are to: Define water shortage terms and conditions for applicable CVP Contractors. Determine the quantity of water made available to CVP Contractors from the CVP that; together with the M&I Contractors’ drought water conservation measures and other Non-CVP water supplies, would assist the M&I Contractors in their efforts to protect public health and safety (PHS) during severe or continuing droughts. Provide information to Contractors for their use in water supply planning and development of drought contingency plans.

Clean Water, Clean Beaches Water Quality Funding Measure*

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) | September 21st, 2012

The Problem: Stormwater and runoff rushes down the street, picking up trash and toxic pollutants. On a rainy day, over 10 billion gallons of contaminated stormw

The Problem: Stormwater and runoff rushes down the street, picking up trash and toxic pollutants. On a rainy day, over 10 billion gallons of contaminated stormwater flows directly — untreated — into rivers, creeks, lakes and our bay and coastal waters. Polluted stormwater and urban runoff include toxins and pathogens that can affect our health, drinking water supplies, and the health of marine life. Contaminants include: Industrial solvents, paints and chemicals; heavy metals like lead, mercury, chromium and arsenic; infection-causing bacteria; pesticides and fertilizers; and trash like plastics, cigarette butts, candy wrappers and syringes. *The proposed solution, a parcel tax to fund stormwater remediation and capture projects, failed before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in 2013.

Clearer Structure, Cleaner Water: Improving Performance and Outcomes at the State Water Boards

Little Hoover Commission | January 1st, 2009

The Little Hoover Commission on Thursday urged the governor and the Legislature to reform the State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control

The Little Hoover Commission on Thursday urged the governor and the Legislature to reform the State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards by expanding the state board to nine members, with five members representing statewide interests and four drawn on a rotating basis from the nine regional board chairpersons, whose positions would become full-time. In addition, the Commission called for a revamped appeals process; to improve the use of data and science in water quality regulatory processes; and urged the water boards to focus on new ways to solve modern water quality problems and set priorities. In its report, Clearer Structure, Cleaner Water: Improving Performance and Outcomes at the State Water Boards, the Commission also recommends refocusing both the state board and regional boards on policy-making and updating basin plans. During its study, the Commission found that the water boards face increasingly complex water quality problems, caused in part by hard-to-regulate sources such as urban and agricultural runoff. The Commission also found that a decentralized governance structure, with nine regional water quality boards operating with distinct policies and processes, hinders accountability and transparency. The result is a system that has lost the confidence of most stakeholders. To restore accountability and increase focus on clean-water outcomes, the Commission recommends strengthening the relationship between the state and regional boards. “The governance structure for water quality regulation in California is 40 years old and is ill-prepared to handle modern problems,” Little Hoover Commission Chairman Daniel Hancock said. “Major reform is needed to help protect and improve water quality, which is a key to the state’s future.”

Colorado River Water: Challenges for California

Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) | October 16th, 1997

The Secretary of the Interior has directed California to come up with a plan to live within its entitlement of 4.4 million acre-feet of water per year. We provide findin

The Secretary of the Interior has directed California to come up with a plan to live within its entitlement of 4.4 million acre-feet of water per year. We provide findings and recommendations regarding this directive.

Dealing with the Delta: Envisioning Futures, Finding Solutions (Research Brief)

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | February 15th, 2007

This research brief summarizes a report by Jay Lund, Ellen Hanak, William Fleenor, Richard Howitt, Jeffrey Mount, and Peter Moyle, Envisioning Futures for the Sacramento�

This research brief summarizes a report by Jay Lund, Ellen Hanak, William Fleenor, Richard Howitt, Jeffrey Mount, and Peter Moyle, Envisioning Futures for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta.

Department of Fish and Wildlife Scientific Integrity Policy

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | June 15th, 2017

In order to guide the scientific work by the Department and pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 715(d), the Department adopts this scientific integrity policy, to ensu

In order to guide the scientific work by the Department and pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 715(d), the Department adopts this scientific integrity policy, to ensure integrity and public confidence in our scientific work. This Scientific Integrity Policy (Policy) affirms the standards for high quality and ethical scientific inquiry within the Department. Given the vital role of science in the management of natural resources, the Department endeavors to maintain and strengthen its commitment to scientific information that is developed and used according to the highest professional standards. These efforts are essential to maintaining the confidence of the public and other stakeholders, and to enhance the reputation of the Department’s scientific programs, policies and staff. Furthermore, the Department is committed to providing an environment that encourages and supports the conduct, communication, and transparency of excellent science. In support of the above, this Policy is to be considered as the collective guiding principles for all scientific endeavors within the Department. The purposes of this Policy are: To foster the development and use of high quality scientific work that is used to inform policy and management within the Department as well as decisions of the Fish and Game Commission. To ensure that the public and decision makers have access to the scientific methodology and analyses behind the Department’s policy positions. This Policy is intended to provide overarching guidance through the standards and protocols listed below. Guidance documents may be added, changed or removed from the list by the Director (or designee), as needed to remain current and relevant.

Department of the Interior Nature-Based Solutions Roadmap

Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability (Duke University) | December 1st, 2023

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy

Federal Register | December 27th, 2016

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), announce the final Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compensatory Mitigation Policy. The new policy steps d

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), announce the final Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compensatory Mitigation Policy. The new policy steps down and implements recent Executive Office, Department of the Interior, and Service mitigation policies that reflect a shift from project-by-project to landscape-scale approaches to planning and implementing compensatory mitigation. The new policy is established to improve consistency and effectiveness in the use of compensatory mitigation as recommended or required under the ESA. The ESA Compensatory Mitigation Policy covers permittee-responsible mitigation, conservation banking, in-lieu fee programs, and other third-party mitigation mechanisms, and stresses the need to hold all compensatory mitigation mechanisms to equivalent and effective standards. DATES: This policy is effective on December 27, 2016.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): The Exemption Process

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | January 27th, 2017

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is designed to protect species from extinction, but it includes an exemption process for those unusual cases where the public benefit fro

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is designed to protect species from extinction, but it includes an exemption process for those unusual cases where the public benefit from an action is determined to outweigh the harm to the species. This process was created by a 1978 amendment to the ESA, but it is rarely used. This report will discuss the exemption process for an agency action, with examples from past controversies, and its potential for application to actions that may affect current controversies, such as water supply. The ESA mandates listing and protecting species that are endangered or threatened with extinction. Listing a species limits activities that could affect that species and provides penalties for taking individuals of that species. The ESA also requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (together, the Services) to determine whether a federal action may jeopardize the continued existence of a species or harm its critical habitat. The consultation process may lead to an opinion by one of the Services that the action will jeopardize listed species or harm their critical habitats unless certain reasonable and prudent alternatives are included in the action. Rarely, the federal action agency may hold that those alternatives are inconsistent with the agency action. In other extremely rare cases, the Services may find that no alternatives are available that would allow the project to proceed and still prevent jeopardy. In either case, the following are the categories of potential applicants that can apply for an exemption for a federal action despite its effects on listed species or their critical habitat: the federal action agency interested in proceeding with the action, an applicant for a federal license or permit whose application was denied primarily because of the prohibitions of ESA requiring that federal agency actions avoid jeopardy to threatened or endangered species or harm to their critical habitats, or the governor of the state where the action was to have occurred. An exemption application is considered by a specially convened committee which may exempt the federal agency’s action from the prohibitions of the ESA. The exemption process allows major economic factors to be judged to outweigh the ESA’s mandate to recover a species when the federal action is found to be in the public interest and is nationally or regionally significant. The exemption process has been invoked with a dam on the Tellico River (TN), a water project in the Platt River (WY and NE), and timber sales (OR). In three other instances, the process was begun but was aborted before a decision was reached. In addition, there has been interest over the years in invoking the process in light of controversies over management of federal and state water resource projects in California, although no application has ever been filed. When a project achieves such levels of controversy, Congress is sometimes asked to intervene in the outcome, as it did in the case of the Tellico Dam and an endangered fish in the late 1970s.