Mono Lake Committee request for an emergency action to protect Mono Lake and its public trust resources

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | December 16th, 2022

Mono Lake Kutzadika’a Tribe support for Emergency Action at Mono Lake Due to Low Lake Level

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | December 22nd, 2022

Mono Lake: background, Decision 1631, current conditions, ongoing developments

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | January 1st, 2023

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].

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

National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County

Supreme Court of California | February 17th, 1983

Navigability and its Consequences: State Title, Mineral Rights, and the Public Trust Doctrine

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) | June 12th, 2014

“Navigability” and “navigable waters” are two of the most complex terms of art in American law because their meanings vary from context to context. A “navigable

“Navigability” and “navigable waters” are two of the most complex terms of art in American law because their meanings vary from context to context. A “navigable water” for purposes of the federal courts’ admiralty jurisdiction is not precisely the same thing as a “navigable water” for Commerce Clause purposes, and the Commerce Clause definition can be further refined in statute like the federal Clean Water Act. Other important federal law definitions of navigability govern state title to banks and beds of waterways and the scope of the federal navigation servitude. As this article will discuss, these tests overlap considerably, and attempts to distinguish them can cause confusion. State law definitions of “navigability” for state regulatory purposes complicate the multiple valences of “navigable water” even further. This article provides an overview of some of the more important definitions of “navigability” and “navigable waters.” In general, labeling a waterway as “navigable” signals that either the federal government or the public acquires some right to the waterway in question. However, if the waterway also meets the “navigable water” test for state title, complicated legal relationships among the federal government, the relevant state, the general public, and private riparian landowners almost inevitably follow.

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.

Near-term Colorado River Operations Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | April 11th, 2023

Reclamation is proposing revising the 2007 Interim Guidelines for the near-term operation of Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams beginning in the 2024 operating year (beginning O

Reclamation is proposing revising the 2007 Interim Guidelines for the near-term operation of Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams beginning in the 2024 operating year (beginning October 1, 2023) to address the potential for continued low-runoff conditions in the Basin.

Necessity for Comprehensive Adjudication of Water Rights on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers in Aid of the Central Valley Project

U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) | November 30th, 1942