Statewide Effects of Ending Long-Term Groundwater Overdraft in California

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) | September 19th, 2019

Groundwater overdraft is a major problem globally and has been a growing problem for California for decades. This overdraft is predominantly driven by the economic value

Groundwater overdraft is a major problem globally and has been a growing problem for California for decades. This overdraft is predominantly driven by the economic value of water for agricultural production and cities. Spurred by the recent drought, California passed legislation requiring the elimination of groundwater overdraft by 2040. This paper employs a statewide hydroeconomic optimization model to explore potential water supply effects of ending long-term groundwater overdraft in California’s Central Valley for several general water policies with historical and warmer–drier climates. The model minimizes agricultural, urban scarcity, and operating costs over 82 years of historical hydrologic variability, given today’s infrastructure and environmental flow constraints. The model results assess effects of overdraft and Delta policies for different climates on water deliveries, economic costs, environmental flows, water market operations, and the economic value of expanding infrastructure capacities. Prohibiting long-term overdraft leads to reduced agricultural water use and reoperations, and reduced outflows to the sea from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where water availability policies become important. In combination with a warmer–drier climate, ending overdraft further exacerbates water scarcities, increases environmental and economic costs, and increases the marginal economic value of water exports from the Delta, which are likely to worsen water conflicts and illustrate connections of California’s groundwater and surface water problems. Economically useful adaptation actions include more water transfers involving the Delta, water markets, and trades; conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater; and recycled wastewater supplies for coastal urban users.

Statistical Downscaling Using Localized Constructed Analogs (LOCA)*

American Meteorological Society (AMS) | December 2nd, 2014

A new technique for statistically downscaling climate model simulations of daily temperature and precipitation is introduced and demonstrated over the western United Sta

A new technique for statistically downscaling climate model simulations of daily temperature and precipitation is introduced and demonstrated over the western United States. The localized constructed analogs (LOCA)method produces downscaled estimates suitable for hydrological simulations using amultiscale spatial matching scheme to pick appropriate analog days fromobservations. First, a pool of candidate observed analog days is chosen by matching the model field to be downscaled to observed days over the region that is positively correlated with the point being downscaled, which leads to a natural independence of the downscaling results to the extent of the domain being downscaled. Then, the one candidate analog day that best matches in the local area around the grid cell being downscaled is the single analog day used there. Most grid cells are downscaled using only the single locally selected analog day, but locations whose neighboring cells identify a different analog day use a weighted combination of the center and adjacent analog days to reduce edge discontinuities. By contrast, existing constructed analog methods typically use a weighted average of the same 30 analog days for the entire domain. By greatly reducing this averaging, LOCA produces better estimates of extreme days, constructs a more realistic depiction of the spatial coherence of the downscaled field, and reduces the problem of producing too many light-precipitation days. The LOCA method is more computationally expensive than existing constructed analog techniques, but it is still practical for downscaling numerous climate model simulations with limited computational resources.

Still Imperilled, Still Important: The Little Hoover Commission’s Review of the CALFED Program

Little Hoover Commission | November 17th, 2005

The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is a treasured and imperiled resource. And CALFED has been the best hope to restore it. The ambitious state-federal partnership is

The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is a treasured and imperiled resource. And CALFED has been the best hope to restore it. The ambitious state-federal partnership is proof that political will and leadership can resolve seemingly intractable conflicts. And yet in recent years, the program also has demonstrated the propensity for rudderless bureaucracies to get caught in inescapable eddies. It is not too late for the Delta, or for CALFED. But restoring the estuary and managing the resource in a sustainable manner will require continuous political support, expert leadership, and smart management.

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.