Causes of the Extreme Dry Conditions over California During Early 2013

American Meteorological Society (AMS) | September 30th, 2014

The state of California experienced extreme dry conditions during early 2013. In particular, January and February received 28% and 15%, respectively, of their nor

The state of California experienced extreme dry conditions during early 2013. In particular, January and February received 28% and 15%, respectively, of their normal monthly rainfall. When January and February are combined, January/ February 2013 is ranked as the driest of the period 1895–2014. Such large precipitation deficits exerted enormous stress on water resources in an already high water-demand region. Thus, it is of practical importance to investigate the causes of this extreme climate event so as to assess its predictability. *Chapter 3, Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 from a Climate Perspective, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95 (9)

Center for Biological Diversity vs. Lincoln County Water District

Nevada Appellate Courts | January 25th, 2024

This case examines whether the State Engineer has the authority to redesignate multiple existing hydrographic basins as one "superbasin" based on a shared source of water

This case examines whether the State Engineer has the authority to redesignate multiple existing hydrographic basins as one "superbasin" based on a shared source of water for purposes of the water's administration and management. We also look at whether the State Engineer complied with due process in creating the superbasin at issue here.

Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (CKGSA) | December 11th, 2019

Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Revised)

Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (CKGSA) | July 13th, 2022

Central Valley Project (CVP) Water Transfer Program Fact Sheet

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | February 1st, 2015

Water transfers and exchanges are an integral part of CVP water operations, particularly in drought years, as long as transfers can occur consistent with stat

Water transfers and exchanges are an integral part of CVP water operations, particularly in drought years, as long as transfers can occur consistent with state and federal laws governing water transfers. In 2014, Reclamation facilitated the transfer of over 257,000 acre-feet of water. Of the 257,000 acre-feet, 213,220 acre-feet was considered “new water” to the system, meaning specific actions (such as reservoir reoperation, crop idling/shifting, groundwater substitution, or Yuba Accord purchases) were taken to make the water available. The remaining quantity was considered an in-basin transfer or a reallocation of contract supply. • §3405(a) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA) authorizes the transfer of all or a portion of a CVP contractors contracted water supply to any other California water user or water agency, State or Federal agency, Indian Tribe, or private non-profit organization for project purposes or any purpose recognized as beneficial under State law. • CVP water transfers are subject to the conditions prescribed in §3405(a), 1993 Interim Guidelines for Implementation of Water Transfers, and the Department of the Interior Final CVPIA Administrative Proposal on Water Transfers (1998). • Water transfer provisions of CVPIA do not apply to permanent contract assignments under which a CVP contractor relinquishes their contractual right to Project water; water banking and recharge actions outside of the contractors boundaries; water for water exchanges; forbearance actions whereby CVP contractors are paid not to exercise their right to water; and transfers of base supply water under settlement contracts which are carried out in accordance with State law. • Since 1992, the Region and the State of California Department of Water Resources, owners and operators of the two largest water projects in California, have collaborated to develop criteria to facilitate water transfers. • The Region facilitates both short and long-term transfers of CVP water. Long-term transfer approvals are accomplished through programmatic environmental documentation, with annual approvals of physical water transfers.

Changes in Winter Atmospheric Rivers along the North American West Coast in CMIP5 Climate Models

American Meteorological Society (AMS) | April 1st, 2014

Most extreme precipitation events that occur along the North American west coast are associated with winter atmospheric river (AR) events. Global climate models h

Most extreme precipitation events that occur along the North American west coast are associated with winter atmospheric river (AR) events. Global climate models have sufficient resolution to simulate synoptic features associated with AR events, such as high values of vertically integrated water vapor transport (IVT) approaching the coast. From phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), 10 simulations are used to identify changes in ARs impacting the west coast of North America between historical (1970–99) and end-of-century (2070–99) runs, using representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5. The most extreme ARs are identified in both time periods by the 99th percentile of IVT days along a north–south transect offshore of the coast. Integrated water vapor (IWV) and IVT are predicted to increase, while lower- tropospheric winds change little. Winter mean precipitation along the west coast increases by 11%–18% [from 4% to 6% (8C)21], while precipitation on extreme IVT days increases by 15%–39% [from 5% to 19% (8C)21]. The frequency of IVT days above the historical 99th percentile threshold increases as much as 290% by the end of this century.

Changing the course? What's worked, what hasn't and what's next for the SCWP: An assessment of the first three rounds of the Safe Clean Water Program

Los Angeles Waterkeeper (LA Waterkeeper) | February 16th, 2023

In 2018, Los Angeles County voters overwhelmingly approved “Measure W” — a 2.5 cent per square foot parcel tax on impervious surface on all land parcels within the

In 2018, Los Angeles County voters overwhelmingly approved “Measure W” — a 2.5 cent per square foot parcel tax on impervious surface on all land parcels within the LA County Flood Control District to fund multi-benefit stormwater infrastructure. The Safe Clean Water Program (SCWP) was developed to distribute and manage the funds raised, approximately $280M annually. The SCWP operates through three distinct programs: the District Program (10% of funds), the Municipal Program (40% of funds), and the Regional Program (50% of funds). The Regional Program has recently completed its third round of funding awarded through a competitive grant process. This assessment focuses on how the Regional Program is performing in achieving the SCWP’s overarching goals of water quality, water supply, and community investment benefits as provided in the ordinance authorizing this measure for the ballot. It also explores how well the program is meeting its goals around community engagement and support, benefits to disadvantaged communities, and green workforce development. The purpose of this assessment is to help the SCWP’s Regional Oversight Committee (ROC) and ultimately other decision-makers such as the LA County Board of Supervisors better understand what is working well with the program and where improvements could be made as part of the biennial review.

Chinatown: Owens Valley and Western Water Reallocation—Getting the Record Straight and What It Means for Water Markets

Texas Law Review (SSRN) | June 1st, 2005

In this Article I examine the notorious Owens Valley water transfer to Los Angeles. Not only was it one of the largest private water exchanges in U.S. history, but it rem

In this Article I examine the notorious Owens Valley water transfer to Los Angeles. Not only was it one of the largest private water exchanges in U.S. history, but it remains pivotal in the political economy of western water reallocation. It involved negotiations over land and water rights between representatives of the city of Los Angeles and approximately eighteen hundred farmers and town lot owners between 1905 and 1935. By 1935, Los Angeles had acquired 95 percent of the farm acreage and 88 percent of the town properties in the valley. The water transferred from Owens Valley, a marginal agricultural area, made possible the growth of Los Angeles, and Owens Valley remains the largest single source of water for the Los Angeles Basin. Yet, the Owens Valley transfer has a very negative legacy and has hindered subsequent efforts to reallocate water from agriculture to urban and environmental uses. The negotiations for water rights and land took thirty years to complete and were often acrimonious. I analyze the negotiations between representatives of Los Angeles and Owens Valley farmers to determine the sources of bargaining conflicts. I also evaluate the economic impact of the exchange on both parties to show that each party was made substantially better off. Yet, the notion of “theft” remains. To explain this, I examine the distribution of the economic benefits of the water and land sale. Distributional issues take on greater importance when there are valuation disputes and the gains from trade are shared very unequally. With these insights, I conclude with lessons for contemporary western water reallocation. 

Chowchilla Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Groundwater Sustainablity Plan

Chowchilla Subbasin GSP Advisory Committee | January 1st, 2020

City of Fresno et al v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation et al

United States Court of of Federal Claims | December 17th, 2024

In this case, we are called upon to review how the federal government resolved a particular dispute over water distribution during the drought-ridden year of 2014

In this case, we are called upon to review how the federal government resolved a particular dispute over water distribution during the drought-ridden year of 2014. As we explain in more detail below, individual growers, irrigation districts (which provide water to farms), water districts (which provide water to municipalities), and the City of Fresno, all located within the area served by the Central Valley Project (“CVP” or “Project”), sued the United States (“government”) over its failure to deliver water they contend they were entitled to under a series of contracts. The government defended its water allocation decisions by pointing to obligations it had under other contracts, to deliver water to another set of entities. Through adjudication of a series of motions, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed several of the plaintiffs’ claims and granted summary judgment to the government on all remaining claims.