Priorities for California’s Water

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | November 14th, 2022

This report considers the state of water in California: What changes are we seeing now, and what should we expect in the near future? Then it examines how these climate s

This report considers the state of water in California: What changes are we seeing now, and what should we expect in the near future? Then it examines how these climate shifts will impact urban and rural communities, agriculture, and the environment. Finally, it explores wet-year strategies that will help Californians get through the dry years.

Public Update for Drought Response: Groundwater Basins with Potential Water Shortages, Gaps in Groundwater Monitoring, Monitoring of Land Subsidence, and Agricultural Land Fallowing

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | November 25th, 2014

California’s Water Year 2014 (October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014) was one of the driest in decades and followed two consecutive dry years throughout the state.

California’s Water Year 2014 (October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014) was one of the driest in decades and followed two consecutive dry years throughout the state. Water year 2014 was the fourth driest year on record after 1924, 1931, and 1977, based on the Sacramento Valley water year index, and the second driest year on record after 1977, based on the San Joaquin Valley water year index. On January 17, 2014, Governor Brown signed a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in response to the drought. In accordance with the proclamation, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) prepared Public Update for Drought Response, Groundwater Basins with Potential Water Shortages and Gaps in Groundwater Monitoring, dated April 30, 2014. On April 25, 2014, the governor issued a second emergency proclamation to strengthen the state’s ability to manage water and habitat effectively in drought conditions and called on all Californians to redouble their efforts to conserve water. In accordance with Order #11 of the April proclamation, this report provides additional and expanded information on groundwater basins with potential water shortages, gaps in groundwater monitoring, monitoring of land subsidence, and agricultural land fallowing.

Recommendations for Sustainable Groundwater Management

California Water Foundation | April 5th, 2014

The results of this effort are organized and presented as follows in this Report: • A review of the Dialogue process that provides additional details about participati

The results of this effort are organized and presented as follows in this Report: • A review of the Dialogue process that provides additional details about participating stakeholders and their perspectives; • A description of the background and challenges for California’s groundwater management and current efforts to achieve measurable progress toward sustainable management; • A set of key Findings; and • A package of seven policy Recommendations intended to lead to a new state policy for meaningful, measurable improvement in groundwater management within realistic timeframes. The Recommendations in this report reflect the best judgments of CWF about what is needed to achieve sustainable groundwater management while keeping decision making primarily at local and regional levels. CWF remains committed to a constructive public discussion about this critical issue and, ultimately, to meaningful legislative and policy actions.

Reforming Davis-Dolwig: Funding Recreation in the State Water Project

Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) | March 19th, 2009

The Davis-Dolwig Act is a 47-year-old state law that specifies that the state, not water ratepayers, should fund the recreation component of the the State Water Project (

The Davis-Dolwig Act is a 47-year-old state law that specifies that the state, not water ratepayers, should fund the recreation component of the the State Water Project (SWP). The budget proposes a number of statutory reforms to the act, in part to provide a dedicated funding source for its implementation. We find that the Governor’s proposal does not address a number of major problems with the implementation of the act and that the administration’s approach improperly limits the Legislature’s oversight role. We also find that, over many years, the Department of Water Resources has been allocating costs to the state under Davis-Dolwig that are significantly in excess of the direct costs to SWP for recreation. In our report, we offer the Legislature a package of statutory reforms to address problems that we have identified with the implementation of Davis-Dolwig. These include clarifying the role of public funding for recreation in SWP. We also recommend that the state evaluate the potential to divest itself of SWP reservoirs that are used mainly for recreation.

Royce Tipton and the Hydrology of the 1944 Treaty with Mexico

John Fleck | May 26th, 2025

Selected Federal Water Activities: Agencies, Authorities, and Congressional Committees

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | ?

More than two centuries of federal water resource activity have resulted in a complex web of federal involvement in water resource development, management, protection, an

More than two centuries of federal water resource activity have resulted in a complex web of federal involvement in water resource development, management, protection, and use. As a result, Congress faces challenges related to overlap and gaps in federal water resource activities and in coordination and consistency among federal programs. Further, many federal authorities are discretionary or funded by discretionary appropriations. Consequently, there can be a significant difference between what federal agencies are authorized to do and what they are actually doing, and no one committee in Congress oversees this dichotomy. Although the responsibility for development, management, protection, and allocation of the nation’s water resources is spread among federal, state, local, tribal, and private interests, this report focuses on federal activities related to water and the congressional committees that authorize and oversee these activities. The report covers multiple topics and individual water-related subtopics ranging from water supply and water quality infrastructure to fisheries management and water rights. The report is not exhaustive; instead, the authors have attempted to cover the major federal activities authorized by Congress that affect water resource development, management, protection, and use in the United States. Similarly, the analysis does not cover every aspect of House and Senate committee jurisdiction affecting water issues. For definitive evaluation of committee jurisdictions related to water, the views of the House and Senate Parliamentarian Offices are official. The report covers four general areas, or themes: (1) “Water Resources Development, Management, and Use”; (2) “Water Quality, Protection, and Restoration”; (3) “Water Rights and Allocation”; and (4) “Research and Planning.” The sections addressing these themes are further divided into tables that list topic areas and individual water-related subtopics. For each subtopic, CRS has identified selected federal agencies and activities related to the subtopic, authorities for such activities, and relevant House and Senate committee jurisdictions, as specified in House and Senate rules. Appendixes address considerations in determining House and Senate committee jurisdictions and present the official language from House Rule X and Senate Rule XXV, respectively, which are indicators of congressional jurisdiction over water resources. The report also includes a glossary of abbreviations for federal agencies and House and Senate committees. The nine tables that make up the body of this report underscore the complexity of federal activities affecting water resource development, management, protection, and use in the United States. As apparent throughout these tables, numerous standing committees in the House and the Senate have jurisdiction over various components of federal water policy. The wide range of federal executive responsibilities for water resources reflects comparably complex congressional legislative responsibilities and directives.

Senate Bill No. 1157

State of California | September 28th, 2022

Socio-hydrological drought impacts on urban water affordability

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | January 19th, 2023

In water-stressed regions, droughts pose a critical challenge to urban water security for low-income households. Droughts reduce water availability, forcing water provide

In water-stressed regions, droughts pose a critical challenge to urban water security for low-income households. Droughts reduce water availability, forcing water providers to invest in additional supplies or enact expensive, short-term emergency measures. These costs are frequently passed on to households through increased rates and surcharges, driving up water bills for low-income households and altering patterns of water consumption. Here we have developed a socio-hydrological modelling approach that integrates hydrology, water infrastructure, utility decision-making and household behaviour to understand the impacts of droughts on household water affordability. We present here an application based on Santa Cruz, California and show that many drought resilience strategies raise water bills for low-income households and lower them for high-income households. We also found that low-income households are most vulnerable to both changing drought characteristics and infrastructure lock-in.

State Investments in Delta Levees

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | January 1st, 2015

This 43-page Issue Paper, authored by Dustin Jones, the Council's Integrated Regional Water Management Supervising Engineer, is entitled State Investments in Delta Levees

This 43-page Issue Paper, authored by Dustin Jones, the Council's Integrated Regional Water Management Supervising Engineer, is entitled State Investments in Delta Levees, Key Issues for Updating Priorities. The Delta Reform Act requires that the Delta Plan promote strategic levee investments that attempt to reduce risks to people, property, and state interests in the Delta (Water Code section 85305) and recommend priorities for state investment in levee operation, maintenance, and improvements in the Delta (Water Code section 85306). In addition, the Delta Plan may identify actions to be taken outside of the Delta, if those actions are determined to significantly reduce flood risks in the Delta and may include local plans of flood protection (Water Code section 85307(a-b)). This paper outlines 15 issues that will need to be considered as the Council updates the Delta Plan’s provisions regarding State investment in the Delta’s levees. It summarizes background information about these issues, provides references for further information, and highlights key points to be addressed through the development of the Delta Levees Investment Strategy.

Strawberry Case Study: What If Farmers Had to Pay for Water?

New York Times | December 29th, 2023

While American farmers elsewhere have watered their crops by freely pumping the groundwater beneath their land, growers in Pajaro must pay hefty fees for irrigation water

While American farmers elsewhere have watered their crops by freely pumping the groundwater beneath their land, growers in Pajaro must pay hefty fees for irrigation water — making it one of the most expensive places to grow food in the country, if not the world. The cost: Up to $400 per acre-foot, a standard measurement equal to water covering one acre, one foot deep. The fees bring in $12 million a year, which is used to recycle, restore and conserve the region’s groundwater.