Citizen's Guide to Working with the California Water Boards

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | July 8th, 2011

The Guide provides an overview of the Water Boards and the many opportunities that all Californians have to participate with the Water Boards in decisions and activities

The Guide provides an overview of the Water Boards and the many opportunities that all Californians have to participate with the Water Boards in decisions and activities that affect the state’s water resources. While some of the public participation opportunities are formal, e.g., at a Water Board hearing, others are less formal, but just as important, e.g., a stakeholder process implemented by a Regional Board. Although the Guide doesn’t contain information about specific water quality decisions that are before the Boards, it will direct you where you can find that information. We look forward to updating this Guide periodically to assure its continuing usefulness to you, the public.

City of Barstow, et al v. City of Adelanto, el al (Mojave Basin Area cases)

Superior Court of California, County of Riverside | December 5th, 2002

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins, Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "The Mojave Basin adjudication was initiated by a lawsuit filed

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins, Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "The Mojave Basin adjudication was initiated by a lawsuit filed May 30, 1990, by the City of Barstow and the Southern California Water Company. The complaint alleged that the cumulative increase in water use in the upper part of the Mojave Basin caused or threatened to cause a reduction in the natural flow of water to the central part of the Mojave Basin. Water users included downstream agriculture (many alfalfa farms), aquaculture, recreational lakes, homeowner associations, and upstream burgeoning municipalities. In the center of the basin is the smaller, low-income town of Barstow, which was concerned about its water supply. A 1993 Stipulated Judgment set forth a proposed physical solution that did not apportion production rights on the basis of preexisting legal water rights, and parties representing over 80 percent of verified water production in the basin agreed to its terms. However, some farmers with overlying rights chose not to stipulate to the judgment. On appeal, the court stated that in considering a stipulated physical solution involving equitable apportionment, the water rights of parties that did not join the stipulation must also be considered. The adjudication set out a complex system to reduce production a producer’s free production allowance (FPA) over time, but withdrawals remain significant in three out of the five subareas. The judgment also contained unique provisions for assuring that the water needs of endangered and other species and their habitat would be protected. One outcome of the adjudication was that many farmers in the western Alto Subarea sold or leased their base annual production (BAP) rights or leased their FPA to municipalities, and population in the Alto Subarea almost doubled. The Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base east of Barstow is a federal Superfund site."

City of San Bernardino vs. Fontana Water Co. et al.

Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino | January 28th, 1924

Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | December 2nd, 2008

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act ("CWA" or "the Act") "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." One

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act ("CWA" or "the Act") "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." One of the mechanisms adopted by Congress to achieve that purpose is a prohibition on the discharge of any pollutants, including dredged or fill material, into "navigable waters" except in compliance with other specified sections of the Act. In most cases, this means compliance with a permit issued pursuant to CWA §402 or §404. The Act defines the term "discharge of a pollutant" as "any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source" and provides that "[t]he term `navigable waters' means the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas[,]." In Rapanos, the Supreme Court addressed where the Federal government can apply the Clean Water Act, specifically by determining whether a wetland or tributary is a "water of the United States." The justices issued five separate opinions in Rapanos (one plurality opinion, two concurring opinions, and two dissenting opinions), with no single opinion commanding a majority of the Court. The Rapanos Decision Four justices, in a plurality opinion authored by Justice Scalia, rejected the argument that the term "waters of the United States" is limited to only those waters that are navigable in the traditional sense and their abutting wetlands. However, the plurality concluded that the agencies' regulatory authority should extend only to "relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water" connected to traditional navigable waters, and to "wetlands with a continuous surface connection to" such relatively permanent waters . Justice Kennedy did not join the plurality's opinion but instead authored an opinion concurring in the judgment vacating and remanding the cases to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Justice Kennedy agreed with the plurality that the statutory term "waters of the United States" extends beyond water bodies that are traditionally considered navigable." Justice Kennedy, however, found the plurality's interpretation of the scope of the CWA to be "inconsistent with the Act's text,structure,andpurpose[,]" and he instead presented a different standard for evaluating CWA jurisdiction over wetlands and other waterbodies.' Justice Kennedy concluded that wetlands are"waters of the United States" "if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as `navigable.' When, in contrast, wetlands' effects on water quality are speculative or insubstantial, they fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the statutory term 'navigable waters.' Four justices, in a dissenting opinion authored by Justice Stevens, concluded that EPA's and the Corps' interpretation of "waters of the United States" was a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Water Act. When there is no majority opinion in a Supreme Court case, controlling legal principles may be derived from those principles espoused by five or more justices. Thus, regulatory jurisdiction under the CWA exists over a water body if either the plurality's or Justice Kennedy's standard is satisfied. Since Rapanos, the United States has filed pleadings in a number of cases interpreting the decision in this manner. The agencies are issuing this memorandum in recognition of the fact that EPA regions and Corps districts need guidance to ensure that jurisdictional determinations, permitting actions, and other relevant actions are consistent with the decision and supported by the administrative record. Therefore, the agencies have evaluated the Rapanos opinions to identify those waters that are subject to CWA jurisdiction under the reasoning of a majority of the justices. This approach is appropriate for a guidance document. The agencies will continue to monitor implementation of the Rapanos decision in the field and recognize that further consideration of jurisdictional issues, including clarification and definition of key terminology, may be appropriate in the future, either through issuance of additional guidance or through rulemaking.

Climate and choice in the Colorado River Basin

Agricultural & Applied Economics Association (AAEA) | October 31st, 2024

Climate Vulnerability and Adaptation Study for California: Legal Analysis of Barriers to Adaptation for California’s Water Sector

California Energy Commission (CEC) | July 31st, 2012

This project focused on the legal and institutional framework associated with California’s water rights allocation system, and identifies changes to that framework that

This project focused on the legal and institutional framework associated with California’s water rights allocation system, and identifies changes to that framework that would facilitate adaptation to climate change. Since such changes may be difficult to accomplish, the project focused largely, but not exclusively, on changes that may be politically feasible now or in the future. There is already conflict in California over water allocation, and climate change will exacerbate that conflict by increasing demand and decreasing supply. Adaptation will be needed both to address already unavoidable impacts from historical emissions, and to address impacts from future emissions. To identify changes that would facilitate adaptation this study looked at recent legislation, policy proposals, and white papers addressing water reform; and off?the record interviews were conducted with individuals familiar with California water law. Having an accurate record of who is diverting water in California, and in what quantity, is the single most important step towards preparing for climate change, and the recommendations reflect that. For groundwater, the changes identified would (1) expand groundwater monitoring and reporting requirements, (2) expand groundwater planning requirements, and (3) require the State Board to improve groundwater management and to prevent the waste or unreasonable use of groundwater. For surface water, the changes we identify would (1) require the State Board to provide information about efficient agricultural water management practices, and streamline State Board procedures for enforcement actions for the waste and unreasonable use of water, (2) increase the enforcement of and penalties for failing to file a Statement of Water Diversion and Use and for illegal diversions, (3) require all beneficiaries of the water rights system to bear the cost of activities related to the administration of those rights, and (4) expand reporting requirements to require diverters to state what they believe their water rights to be.

Closing Loopholes in Water Rights Systems to Save Water: The Colorado River Basin

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | August 26th, 2024

Colorado River Basin Environmental Transfers Scorecard

Stanford University | March 16th, 2017

The Colorado River and its tributaries support more than 35 million people and irrigate more than four million acres of farmland. At the same time, the river supports 30

The Colorado River and its tributaries support more than 35 million people and irrigate more than four million acres of farmland. At the same time, the river supports 30 fish species found nowhere else on earth and inspires millions of visitors and residents alike with its sheer beauty. However, growing water scarcity caused by increased water use, hydrologic variability and climate change loom over all the Colorado River provides. Click here for follow-up report.

Colorado River Basin Ten Tribes Partnership Tribal Water Study

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | December 13th, 2018

The Colorado River Basin Tribes Partnership (a.k.a. Ten Tribes Partnership) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) initially undertook the Colorado River Basin Triba

The Colorado River Basin Tribes Partnership (a.k.a. Ten Tribes Partnership) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) initially undertook the Colorado River Basin Tribal Water Study to augment the data produced for the Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study of 2012. With five tribes in the Upper Basin and five tribes in the Lower Basin, and between us, holding rights to more than 2.8 million acre-feet per year of water from the Colorado River and its tributaries, the Ten Tribes Partnership was uniquely positioned to explore these issues. However, in so doing, we learned that the effort would also serve to facilitate a broader and, we hope, a better understanding of the role tribal water plays, and will play, in the Colorado River Basin over the coming decades. In addition to producing technical information, the Tribes had other goals. First, we wanted to better understand how, at present, each of our individual water use scenarios fits into the overall scheme of Colorado River Basin management. Second, we wanted to know how future development of tribal water resources will alter Basin operations and affect other water users who are now using water to which a tribe may hold legal title, but which the title-holding tribe has not yet developed for its own use. Finally, we wanted to assess – to the extent present information allows – the role future development of tribal water rights will have on Basin operations. Along the way, we encountered data gaps, modeling limitations, and uncertainties, but nonetheless, with the support of Reclamation, we managed to address those issues sufficiently that we now provide this Report. If there is a ‘take-away’ that was surprising, it is that, even under the most favorable of circumstances for rapid tribal water development, the amount of water that will be used by the Tribes is dramatically overshadowed by the effect of climatic conditions on the overall supply of water in the Basin. Nature is still in charge. Challenges remain, but opportunities are in the offing. We hope this Report informs, resolves some uncertainty about how tribes perceive the future for their water uses, and establishes a baseline for discussions and development of relationships among tribes, states, the federal government, water managers, and water users throughout the Basin.

Colorado River Compact, 1922

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | November 24th, 1922