Levee Decisions and Sustainability for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | August 15th, 2010

Los Angeles Basin Study The Future of Stormwater Conservation: Task 6 – Trade-Off Analysis & Opportunities

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | January 5th, 2016

The Los Angeles Basin Study (LA Basin Study) is a collaborative partnership between the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) and the U.S. Department of the

The Los Angeles Basin Study (LA Basin Study) is a collaborative partnership between the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The purpose of the LA Basin Study is to investigate long-range water conservation and flood risk impacts caused by projected changes in climate and population in the Los Angeles region. The LA Basin Study highlights opportunities for potential modifications and changes to both the existing regional stormwater capture system as well as for the development of new facilities and practices, which could help to resolve future water supply and flood risk issues. The stormwater capture concepts and alternatives developed in the Task 5 – Infrastructure & Operations Concepts report are evaluated in the trade-off analysis and opportunities highlighted in this report.  The primary purpose of Task 6 – Trade-Off Analysis & Opportunities is to evaluate the quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits and costs of the stormwater concepts identified in the Task 5 report and to provide an analysis of the trade-offs among concepts. In most cases, various project concepts would generate benefits for some impact categories but not others, and would also impose various types of costs. The trade-off analysis provides a methodology for comparing different types of benefits and costs that cannot all be quantified in monetary terms. These trade-offs include economic, financial, environmental, and social effects. Economic effects include the benefits associated with different types of goods and services supported by the concepts, the costs of the different concepts, the impacts of the different concepts on the regional economy through changes in the amount and type of spending, and the cost effectiveness of different project concepts. Financial effects reflect the impacts of paying for a project, such as paying off capital debt and covering operation and maintenance expenses. Environmental effects reflect the type and quality of environmental and natural resources that would be potentially influenced by a concept. Environmental effects include items such as water quality, energy consumption, impacts on habitat, and ecosystem function. Social effects reflect how the concepts may alter the social characteristics of a community or region such as impacts to education, environmental justice, and quality of life.  Benefits are quantified for three categories of resource impacts. The first category is additional stormwater conserved or stored, which is measured in terms of acre-feet per year. The second is recreation, which is measured in miles of new trails. The third is increased habitat acreage and additional acquisition of right-of-way acreage that would provide habitat benefits. Stormwater conservation benefits are valued as improved water supply reliability, recreation is valued as a type of general recreation activity similar to outdoor activities at a local park, and habitat acreage is evaluated as an ecosystem improvement. In the case of the Regional Impact Programs concept, right-of-way acreage also produces some ecosystem benefits. Quantified benefits and costs as well as categories of qualitative benefits are summarized in Table ES-1. All benefits and costs are present valued over a 50-year planning period using the current Fiscal Year 2016 federal water project planning rate of 3.125%.  The economic analysis of quantified benefits can be used to evaluate the magnitude of potential benefits of each project group, recognizing that many additional benefits may exist that are not accounted for in a traditional benefit and cost analysis. It is important to note that quantified benefits could only be developed for a subset of the total beneficial effects associated with the concepts identified in the Task 5 report. There are many potential benefits associated with environmental and social improvements, flood risk mitigation, environmental justice, and other effects that could be large but cannot be evaluated quantitatively for this level of analysis. These unquantified benefits may be larger than quantified benefits in some cases and smaller in other cases. The intent of the qualitative assessment is to provide an indication of the potential magnitude of unquantified benefits. 

Los Angeles County’s Climate Cost Challenge

Center for Climate Integrity | April 2nd, 2024

Within the first two months of 2024, the City of Los Angeles had already exceeded its average annual rainfall, receiving nearly 15 inches of rain in back-to-back deluges.

Within the first two months of 2024, the City of Los Angeles had already exceeded its average annual rainfall, receiving nearly 15 inches of rain in back-to-back deluges.1 The storms flooded roads, brought massive wind gusts, ripped down trees, and killed nine people.2 The year prior was the hottest year ever recorded, including unseasonably hot weather into the fall months in Southern California. In October 2023, a wildfire ripped through rural lands southeast of the City of Los Angeles, destroying multiple buildings and forcing approximately 4,000 people to evacuate. With climate-driven disasters in Southern California growing more intense every year, it’s more important than ever for communities to invest in a growing range of climate adaptation and resilience projects. This study is the first-ever attempt to calculate the costs of preparing for and adapting to 14 different climate impacts on municipal, county, state, and federal governments in Los Angeles County.

Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life Proposed Regulation Review of the Water Board’s Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis (SRIA)

Mesa Water District | September 28th, 2023

Maladaptation to drought: a case report from California, USA

Sustainability Science (Springer) | October 15th, 2015

The interactions between natural water availability and societal water demand and management are complex. In response to gaps in empirical research of the adaptive capaci

The interactions between natural water availability and societal water demand and management are complex. In response to gaps in empirical research of the adaptive capacity of social and environmental systems to climate stresses, we provide an assessment of responses to water scarcity during a multi-year drought in California. In particular, we use Barnett and O’Neill’s (Global Environ Change 20:211–213, 2010) criteria for maladaptation to examine responses in the agricultural and energy sectors to a multi-year (2007–2009) California drought. We conclude that despite evidence in both sectors of resiliency to the impacts of the drought, some of the coping strategies adopted increased the vulnerability of other systems. These other systems include California’s aquatic ecosystems and social groups that rely on those ecosystems for their health or employment; future generations whose resources were drawn down in the near-term, where otherwise those resources would have been available at a later time; and current and future generations who were, or will be, exposed to the effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions. This case study demonstrates that California’s current strategies for dealing with long or severe droughts are less successful than previously thought when short- and long-term impacts are evaluated together. This finding is particularly relevant given projections of more frequent and severe water shortages in the future due to climate change. This study recommends a shift from crisis-driven responses to the development and enactment of long-term mitigation measures that are anticipatory and focus on comprehensive risk reduction.

Marine heatwaves need clear definitions so coastal communities can adapt

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | April 3rd, 2023

Modernizing the system: California Water Fix finance and cost allocation (White paper #3)

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) | August 10th, 2017

The third in a series of policy papers prepared for the consideration of Metropolitan’s Board of Directors in advance of planned summer meetings and decisions in fall 2

The third in a series of policy papers prepared for the consideration of Metropolitan’s Board of Directors in advance of planned summer meetings and decisions in fall 2017. Modernizing and improving California’s water system is essential for the reliable delivery of water supplies to much of the state. About 30 percent of the water that flows out of taps in Southern California homes and businesses comes from Northern California watersheds and flows through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. But the Delta’s declining ecosystem and 1,100 miles of levees are increasingly vulnerable to earthquakes, flooding, saltwater intrusion, climate change and further environmental degradation. California WaterFix is the product of more than a decade of review, planning, rigorous scientific and environmental analysis and unprecedented public comment. This white paper provides information about the costs of the project, including adjustments of capital, mitigation and O&M costs to 2017 dollars. The financing plan is presented with financial assumptions and a range of financing scenarios. The cost allocation information covers Metropolitan’s anticipated financial commitment, an estimate of member agency wholesale rate impacts, and metrics to assess retail level impacts. Using this information and when compared to costs for other local supply alternatives, California WaterFix would provide a cost-effective supply for Southern California’s water portfolio.

Mokelumne watershed avoided cost analysis: Why Sierra fuel treatments make economic sense

Sierra Nevada Conservancy | April 10th, 2014

High-severity wildfires in forests of California’s Sierra Nevada pose a serious threat to people and nature. Although proactive forest management can reduce the risk of

High-severity wildfires in forests of California’s Sierra Nevada pose a serious threat to people and nature. Although proactive forest management can reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire, the pace and scale of fuel treatments is insufficient, given the growing scope of the problem. Using the upper Mokelumne River watershed as a representative case, we sought to answer the following question: Does it make economic sense to increase investment in fuel treatments to reduce the risk of large, damaging wildfires? Our analysis suggests that the economic benefits of landscape- scale fuel-reduction treatments far outweigh the costs of wildfire. 

Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves Interim Report

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) | June 30th, 2018

NRDC Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative - Appendix A: Alternative Water Supply Cost and Yield Estimates

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) | January 16th, 2013

This conceptual alternative proposes a smaller capital investment in a Delta facility, in comparison with the current BDCP preliminary project, and an investment of some

This conceptual alternative proposes a smaller capital investment in a Delta facility, in comparison with the current BDCP preliminary project, and an investment of some of the savings in regional water supply tools. This analysis includes estimates of the capital cost and water supply benefits of regional investments. The capital costs associated with water recycling are well established. In state-wide projects, these costs are estimated to range between $6,430 and $6,470 per acre-feet (“AF”) of permanent water recycling capacity. Capital, or initial/one-time costs for urban water use efficiency are less well established, as these costs are usually expressed in total annual costs and the costs of efficiency programs can vary widely. Due to the variation of cost estimates, this analysis focuses on the cost estimates provided in the California Water Plans of 2009 and the 2013 update in order to present a consistent source and methodology. The $3,230/AF to $4,860/AF capital cost for urban water efficiency programs is explained in greater detail below. Other alternative water supply investments are also promising, such as improvements in agricultural water use efficiency, improved groundwater management and stormwater capture and reuse. Our analysis has not focused on these types of investments because cost and yield information vary widely. However, our analysis is not meant to exclude investments in these types of supplies, which will be cost-effective investments in many localities. RELATED DOCUMENTS: NRDC Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative – Summary Benefits of a diversified portfolio approach to the Bay-Delta and water supply NRDC Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative - letter of water agency and organizational support