Stipulated Agreement: Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles vs. Board of Supervisors of the County of Inyo et al

Superior Court of California, County of Inyo | October 21st, 1991

Stony Creek Fan Conjunctive Water Management Plan Feasibility Investigation

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District | February 15th, 2004

Storage Capacity and Sedimentation Characteristics of the San Antonio Reservoir, California, 2018

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | January 15th, 2020

Storing Water for the Environment: Operating Reservoirs to Improve California’s Freshwater Ecosystems

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | August 23rd, 2022

Large reservoirs like those that rim the Central Valley are essential for managing water in California’s highly variable climate. They provide multiple benefits includi

Large reservoirs like those that rim the Central Valley are essential for managing water in California’s highly variable climate. They provide multiple benefits including water supply, hydropower, flood management, and recreation. However, construction and operation of these reservoirs have also imposed significant environmental costs, including native fishes’ loss of access to high-quality habitat above dams and degradation of freshwater ecosystems below them. Moreover, regulatory uncertainty for water users is rising as these ecosystems decline. California needs a new approach for managing environmental water in its large reservoirs, particularly as the climate warms and droughts become more intense.

Storms, Floods, and the Science of Atmospheric Rivers

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | August 9th, 2011

Imagine a stream of water thousands of kilometers long and as wide as the distance between New York City and Washington, D. C., flowing toward you at 30 miles perhour.

Imagine a stream of water thousands of kilometers long and as wide as the distance between New York City and Washington, D. C., flowing toward you at 30 miles perhour. No, this is not some hypothetical physics problem—it is a real river, carrying more water than 7–15 Mississippi Rivers combined. But it is not on land. It’s a river of water vapor in the atmosphere.

Stormwater Capture: Enhancing Recharge and Direct Use Through Data Collection

Southern California Water Coalition | April 26th, 2018

The purpose of this 2018 white paper update is to gain a better understanding of actual stormwater runoff capture volumes, costs, benefits, and project performa

The purpose of this 2018 white paper update is to gain a better understanding of actual stormwater runoff capture volumes, costs, benefits, and project performance across the region to inform future discussions. This white paper augments prior efforts and uses the most recent and best available stormwater project data. Previously in January 2012, the SCWC published its first white paper on stormwater titled Stormwater Capture: Opportunities to Increase Water Supplies in Southern California (SCWC 2012). The purpose of the 2012 white paper was to examine existing statewide policies, goals, and regional plans related to integrated stormwater management; trends, structure, and requirements of MS4 permits as they pertain to both opportunities and constraints to maximizing stormwater capture for water supply purposes; and the advantages and disadvantages of two strategies of stormwater management: onsite low impact development and regional stormwater capture and infiltration. Lastly, the 2012 white paper largely focused on conceptual stormwater projects and technical strategies for increasing stormwater capture. Since the 2012 white paper, many of the proposed projects were constructed and in operation. Other plans such as Metropolitan’s 2015 Integrated Resources Plan (MWD 2016), the City of Los Angeles’s Stormwater Capture Master Plan (LADWP 2015), and Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s LA Basin Study (LACFCD 2016) also estimated stormwater capture and costs. The SCWC saw an opportunity to evaluate the costs and benefits of these constructed stormwater capture projects and pursued a white paper update.

Stormwater Funding Options Providing Sustainable Water Quality Funding in Los Angeles County

California Contract Cities Association (CCCA) | May 21st, 2014

The Los Angeles region faces critical, very costly, and seriously underfunded stormwater and urban runoff water quality challenges. The Los Angeles County Flood Control D

The Los Angeles region faces critical, very costly, and seriously underfunded stormwater and urban runoff water quality challenges. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) led a multi-year effort to develop a sustainable revenue source for municipalities to manage stormwater programs and implement water quality improvement projects. This effort included special legislation and development of a proposed parcel fee, the “Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure,” to fund clean water programs. At extended protest hearings on a proposed parcel fee in January and March of 2013, the Board of Supervisors heard concerns about the fee and the fee program from public schools, the business community, other stakeholders and the public. The Board moved to close the public hearing and determined to “not proceed at this time with the Clean Water, Clean Beaches measure as proposed.” In June 2013, the Board adopted a motion requesting collaborative participation with the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD) and other wastewater management agencies to evaluate methods, assess the a potential model governance structure, and to help identify and secure other sources of funding. In response to the Board’s actions, the City Managers Committees of the California Contract Cities Association (CCCA) and the League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division (League) convened a City Managers meeting with representatives from public schools, environmental organizations, and the business community on June 27, 2013 to hear stakeholders’ concerns and suggestions directly. The City Managers attending the meeting authorized a Work Group to review stormwater funding options after the County’s proposed Clean Water, Clean Beaches funding initiative failed to move forward. The City Managers Work Group actively sought the input of key stakeholders from the environmental, public education, and business communities, and prepared this report to assist the Board, local decision makers, stakeholders, and the public in reaching a common understanding of the issues at hand and the potential solutions. The Managers found that to fully understand the issues, improved communication and education is necessary. This report describes the stormwater regulatory requirements speci c to the greater Los Angeles area, the complexities of funding stormwater programs, and the LACFCD’s funding initiative. It examines the regulatory framework for stormwater management, including the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 permit (stormwater permit) and the total maximum daily load (TMDL) programs. The report also summarizes the impacts of the federal TMDL Consent Decree for the Los Angeles Region signed in 1999, which has indirectly regulated the LACFCD, 85 cities, and the unincorporated County since that time. Further, it reviews estimated stormwater program compliance costs, the “pros and cons” of various funding options, and evolving opportunities. The report concludes with a series of recommendations agreed upon by the City Managers. Suggestions from an Elected Officials Committee and individual City Attorneys are also included in this report. The Work Group found that funding urban runoff programs is so complex and dynamic, and the solutions so costly, that the County and the Cities cannot follow a single funding strategy at this time. One option, for example, is to examine institutional roles to determine whether other agencies, such as the County Sanitation Districts, either provide a useful governance model or could play a new or different role in managing stormwater in the future. During the report development process, the Sixth Appellate Court clarified the application of Proposition 218 regarding the imposition of fees for the capture and use of stormwater for groundwater recharge (Griffith v. Pajaro Water Management Agency). This ruling could have major implications on funding options. These are only two examples of the changing nature and complexities in charting a path forward. The City Managers Work Group recommends a “multi-pronged” approach to address urban runoff funding issues, since our communities may encounter several dead-ends. A number of the recommendations require active management and a higher degree of organization by local government. The recommended actions are voluntary. The report is not advocating that any city, group of cities, or the County adopt stormwater fees. The managers are committed to local control; if a regional fee moves forward, each community should make its own decision whether or not to participate in the regional effort. However, there are steps that local governments can take that will assist in funding the new stormwater mandates. For example, cities should organize and be active in the water bond discussions. This report suggests a voluntary framework through Contract Cities and the League to organize those communities that desire to engage in implementing the recommendations found in this report. It should be noted that the recommendations involving California Contract Cities, the Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities, and the State League of Cities have not been of cially endorsed by these organizations at this stage of the process. The City Managers Work Group and the Elected Of cials Committee held detailed discussions with staff from both organizations in order to re ect their input and concerns. Recommendations involving these organizations, such as changes in State legislation, would need to be reviewed and approved by each organization.

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.

Strum Und Drand – California’s Remarkable Storm-Drought Connection

International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research | May 31st, 2019

Storm and drought are essentially the whole story of water and life in California in ways that have always made hydro-environmental engineering a unique proposition th

Storm and drought are essentially the whole story of water and life in California in ways that have always made hydro-environmental engineering a unique proposition there. To begin with, California experiences larger year-to-year variations in precipitation than elsewhere in the US, with standard deviations of annual precipitation between 30-50% of long-term averages, compared to 10-30% nearly everywhere else. California’s annual precipitation totals routinely vary from as little as 50% to more than 200% of long-term averages, with those dry excursions forming our droughts. This extreme variability arises because California’s Mediterranean climate only provides a limited seasonal window of precipitation events, and within that period a small number of storms deliver most of the State’s precipitation each year. If a few extra large storms reach California in a given winter, we can have a very wet year indeed; if some are lacking, we face drought. But the storm-drought connection is deeper and more pervasive in California than anywhere else in the US.

Summarizing Relationships among Landfalling Atmospheric Rivers, Integrated Water Vapor Transport, and California Watershed Precipitation 1982–2019

American Meteorological Society (AMS) | September 16th, 2022

Atmospheric rivers (ARs) are defined as corridors of enhanced integrated water vapor transport (IVT) and produce large fractions of annual precipitation in regions with c

Atmospheric rivers (ARs) are defined as corridors of enhanced integrated water vapor transport (IVT) and produce large fractions of annual precipitation in regions with complex terrain along the western coastlines of midlatitude continents (e.g., 30%–50% along the U.S. West Coast in California). This study investigates this relationship among landfalling ARs, IVT, and watershed mean areal precipitation (MAP) for a 38-yr period over California. On average, the daily average IVT magnitude at different coastal locations explains ∼34% of the variance in annual watershed MAP across 140 Hydrologic Unit Code 8 (HUC-8) watersheds with large spatial variability across California. Further investigation of the IVT magnitude and direction at coastal locations illustrated that accounting for water vapor transport direction increases the explained variance in annual MAP to an average of 45%, with highest values (∼65%) occurring in watersheds over Northern and coastal California. Similar investigation of the lower-tropospheric water vapor flux vector at 850 and 925 hPa revealed further increases in the explained variance in annual MAP to an average of >50%. The results of this study 1) emphasize the importance of both IVT direction and water vapor flux altitude to watershed MAP, 2) align well with previous studies for select locations that highlight the importance of upslope (i.e., lower tropospheric) water vapor flux during landfalling ARs and precipitation, and 3) motivate the development of AR-related and watershed-centric forecast tools that incorporate IVT direction and water vapor flux altitude parameters in addition to IVT magnitude.