A Spatiotemporal History of Key Pelagic Fish Species in the San Francisco Estuary, CA

Springer | April 11th, 2023

A Study of Economic and Financial Policies for State Water Projects

State of California | August 5th, 1959

A Summary of Water-Quality Monitoring in San Francisco Bay in Water Year 2017

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | July 1st, 2020

This report summarizes the activities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) San Francisco Bay Water-Quality Monitoring and Sediment Transport Project during water

This report summarizes the activities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) San Francisco Bay Water-Quality Monitoring and Sediment Transport Project during water year 2017, including an explanation of methods employed, stations operated, and a graphical summary of data for the period of record for stations operational in water year 2017. In cooperation with partner agencies, the USGS maintains a network of sensors that continuously and autonomously measures water-quality parameters in San Francisco Bay including water temperature, specific conductance, turbidity, and suspended-sediment concentration. Data are collected at several locations in the estuary by a network of water-quality sondes sampled at 15-minute intervals. Methods of data collection are presented along with documentation of the regression models utilized to estimate suspended-sediment concentration from observed turbidity, a commonly utilized surrogate to estimate suspended-sediment concentration. The goals of the data collection effort are to (1) obtain long-term, high-frequency, and high-quality data to describe San Francisco Bay water quality; (2) make the data publicly available on the USGS National Water Information System data portal; and (3) help improve understanding of the spatial and temporal variability of water quality in the estuary, informing management decisions regarding restoration, water supply, navigation, and ecology.

A Sustainable Water Plan for California

Environmental Water Caucus | September 9th, 2015

California’s drought is dire, and has focused legislative and public attention on the enormity of the state’s water problems. As noted in earlier Environmental Water

California’s drought is dire, and has focused legislative and public attention on the enormity of the state’s water problems. As noted in earlier Environmental Water Caucus (EWC) reports, California already was in a state of crisis prior to the current drought. Four years of minimal precipitation have only worsened our situation. Our most pressing problems include: the over allocation of surface water by a factor of at least five, leading to supply unreliability for many users and what is referred to as “paper water;” degraded ecosystems and fisheries; and overexploitation of groundwater supplies. All these issues are exacerbated by ongoing climate change and population growth. The current drought has caused significant new legislation and rules for the state’s water supplies. These are positive developments, and could lead to new approaches for water use; however, too many of these “solutions” are predicated on the false assumption that current drought conditions are temporary. Thirty percent of recent years can be classified as drought years, and multiple drought years are common. According to DWR, 40 of the last 100 years have been drought or multiple drought years. We must consider our water in new ways. We must acknowledge that California is a drought-prone state, that water is and will be limited, and that every citizen, farmer and commercial enterprise must consume water responsibly, rationally, and in line with available supplies. Unfortunately, many of the plans and actions proposed by our public agencies are based on a fantasy of ever-increasing supply. They demonstrate a bizarre and potentially catastrophic unwillingness to align demand and water contracts with actual supplies and a total disregard for economically disadvantaged communities, fish, and wildlife. Further, state officials are exploiting the current drought to justify a tired and bankrupt ideology that promotes more dams, tunnels, and infrastructure as a solution to water shortfalls. Most egregiously, they avoid any objective analysis of the true costs and benefits of additional surface storage or the proposed “Twin Tunnels” trans-Delta project. The Governor’s Water Action Plan and the recently authorized Water Bond continue the destructive and ultimately unsustainable momentum toward more surface storage and delivery infrastructure while not creating any new water supplies. We must recognize that the state’s largest water user – irrigated agriculture – uses 80% of the state’s developed water supply and contributes less than 2% to the states’ economy and payroll, and adjust water practices and priorities accordingly. The continuous planting of permanent crops south of the Delta, where water supply is not reliable and water rights are junior, does not meet the “reasonable use” criteria called for in the California Constitution. Most of the state’s plans will not reduce water demand or increase supplies. Rather, they pointedly ignore two practices that will augment supplies dramatically: water conservation and recycling. Further, following any brief respite to the drought, there is the omnipresent danger that the state will revert to the “endless supply” mindset that has characterized California water policy for decades. Since 2009 the Environmental Water Caucus has proposed an approach to our limited water supplies that is efficient, cost-effective and equitable. It will carry us sustainably into the future, and it addresses the deficiencies described above. Unlike our state bureaucracies, we are not simply trying to squeak through the drought; we are advocating for a wholly different management regime. The EWC plan was proposed prior to the current drought, but it addresses the extant crisis and any future period characterized by water shortages. As stressful as it is for ratepayers, farmers and businesses, the current drought enables reform. More to the point, it demands it. Our public officials must recognize this opportunity, and seize it.

Accounting for Water "Wasted to the Sea"

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | April 19th, 2018

Freshwater outflow from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is a contentious management issue. Once mixed with salt water of San Francisco Bay, outflow is often characteri

Freshwater outflow from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is a contentious management issue. Once mixed with salt water of San Francisco Bay, outflow is often characterized as having no value for urban and agricultural water supply, and thus “wasted to the sea.” In the July issue of San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, Cloern et al. (2017) showed how outflow from the Delta provides multiple and diverse benefits to the San Francisco estuary. Rather than being “wasted,” this outflow improves ecosystem conditions and water quality, and reduces wastewater treatment costs. The Cloern et al. (2017) essay highlights the importance of considering the multiple benefits of water as it moves within and out of the Delta. To do this, however, California needs a better water accounting system. In this report, we present an alternative approach. For the period 1980–2016, we assign inflow to the Delta to four categories: 1. Water used for diversions, 2. Outflow needed to meet salinity standards for diversions, 3. Outflow to meet ecosystem regulations, and 4. Water that results in outflow because of a lack of capacity for diversion. This approach highlights that much of the outflow from the Delta — particularly during dry periods — achieves multiple economic and environmental benefits and is hardly “wasted to the sea.”

Achieving State Goals for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) | January 15th, 2015

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) is a biodiverse ecosystem that covers about 1,150 square miles and supports over 700 species of fish and wildlife. The Delta is a

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) is a biodiverse ecosystem that covers about 1,150 square miles and supports over 700 species of fish and wildlife. The Delta is an important source of water for the state and is used to convey water from Northern California to Southern California. The Delta faces several significant problems, including: (1) a decline in key native fish species, (2) reductions in the amount of Delta water available for use elsewhere, (3) water pollutants that cause harm to species and increase treatment costs, and (4) levees at significant risk of failure. The state has engaged in numerous efforts to address these problems and achieve its "coequal goals" for the Delta: water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration. There are many opportunities for the Legislature to improve the success of these efforts. We identified several issues for its consideration, including (1) demands for Delta water, (2) uncertain funding sources and slow implementation of some key activities, (3) limits on the effectiveness of governance in the Delta, and (4) challenges to restoring the Delta ecosystem. By addressing some of these issues, the Legislature can improve the likelihood that its goals and objectives for the Delta will be realized.

Adaptation Pathways: San Leandro Operational Landscape Unit

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | May 15th, 2022

Given the diverse uses and conditions of San Francisco Bay’s 400-mile shoreline, a framework is needed to guide development of adaptation strategies appropriate to loca

Given the diverse uses and conditions of San Francisco Bay’s 400-mile shoreline, a framework is needed to guide development of adaptation strategies appropriate to local conditions. Operational Landscape Units (OLUs), outlined for the San Francisco Bay in the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas (SFEI and SPUR 2019), share common physical characteristics and therefore can benefit from being managed as individual units. OLUs cross traditional jurisdictional boundaries (cities, counties), and instead follow the boundaries of natural processes like tides, waves, and sediment movement. By planning at the OLU scale, it is possible to prioritize adaptation strategies that work synergistically. Coordinated OLU planning can help avoid unintended impacts on neighboring locales and identify synergies to make use of limited resources in a more efficient manner.

Adaptation Planning for the Bay Point Operational Landscape Unit

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | April 15th, 2022

This document is not a vision or an adaptation plan, but rather is meant to catalyze discussion and offer resources around nature-based opportunities for SLR adaptation a

This document is not a vision or an adaptation plan, but rather is meant to catalyze discussion and offer resources around nature-based opportunities for SLR adaptation along Bay Point’s shoreline. The engagement and leadership of community-based stakeholders is key to the success of any adaptation planning effort, especially around issues as long-term and far-reaching as SLR and associated storm and tidal flooding. Without transparency and intentional community engagement throughout the planning process, opportunities for creative solutions will surely be missed and might lead to new problems or exacerbate existing ones disproportionately felt by low-income communities and communities of color. At the time this memo was written, there was not an active SLR adaptation working group or equivalent effort happening along the Bay Point shoreline. Consequently, the intent of this memo is to offer useful resources and ideas to support meaningful dialogue among stakeholders about shoreline adaptation planning. The Bay Point OLU study area is a mix of open space and developed areas at the mouth of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, where the Delta meets the San Francisco Bay. The Bay Point OLU comprises unincorporated land known as Bay Point, a census-designated place within ContraCosta County, the City of Pittsburg, the spheres of influence of Pittsburg and Concord, and District V of Contra Costa County (Figure 2). Chapter 2 examines how Bay Point’s landscape has changed over time and Chapter 3 summarizes some of the vulnerability studies, habitat goals, and adaptation plans that have been developed for the study area. Chapter 4 offers more in-depth descriptions of the Bay Point OLU along with detailed maps that can be used to kick start SLR adaptation planning with a stakeholder working group along this reach of shoreline. Chapter 5 concludes with conceptual ideas that may be appropriate for different reaches of the shoreline, as a menu of possibilities to be further developed through a stakeholder process. Chapter 6 suggests ideas on next steps needed to move this work forward and offers a list of potential stakeholders as a starting place towards an adaptation working group to identify, evaluate, and prioritize adaptation strategies to manage flood risks along Bay Point’s shoreline.

Adapting Restoration for a Changing Climate Symposium

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | November 5th, 2021

Adapting to Climate Change: Catching and Moving Water from Big Storms

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | February 15th, 2024