Near-term Colorado River Operations Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | April 11th, 2023

Reclamation is proposing revising the 2007 Interim Guidelines for the near-term operation of Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams beginning in the 2024 operating year (beginning O

Reclamation is proposing revising the 2007 Interim Guidelines for the near-term operation of Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams beginning in the 2024 operating year (beginning October 1, 2023) to address the potential for continued low-runoff conditions in the Basin.

Necessity for Comprehensive Adjudication of Water Rights on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers in Aid of the Central Valley Project

U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) | November 30th, 1942

Notice of Entry of Order for Implementation of Preliminary Injunction – Case No. Bcv-22-103220-Gap, Bring Back the Kern et al v. City of Bakersfield et al

Superior Court of California, County of Kern | November 14th, 2023

Passage and Flow Considered Anew: Wild Salmon Restoration Via Hyrdo Relicensing

University of Montana | May 24th, 2016

Petition for Extension of Time to Perfect Conditional Water Rights Under the State Water Project Permits (SWP) 16478, 16479, 16481, and 16482 for Water Supply and Permits 16477 and 16480 for Hydropower Operations

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 21st, 2025

Click here for DWR press release and related correspondence.

Click here for DWR press release and related correspondence.

Physical and Hydrologic Assessment of the Carmel River Watershed California

California State University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB) | November 1st, 2004

The Carmel Watershed is a terrestrial jewel in the California landscape. Its forested headwaters harvest rain from the Pacific storms each winter, providing a nat

The Carmel Watershed is a terrestrial jewel in the California landscape. Its forested headwaters harvest rain from the Pacific storms each winter, providing a natural cascade of resources enjoyed by human residents and the broader ecosystem. Although the Carmel River is not currently listed as “impaired” by the State of California, there have been significant human impacts that could lead to impaired waters. These impacts are now recognized and defined in this report so that remediation and future management policies can be developed. This report is one facet of the Carmel Watershed Assessment orchestrated by the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy. We assess the physical and hydrologic components of the watershed, chiefly focusing on two major classes of problems, water quantity and excess sediment. Both of these issues are important when considering human needs and the needs of the broader ecosystem, including endangered aquatic and riparian species. The Carmel Watershed has finite annual rainfall as its only water resource. That resource is currently stretched too thin, leaving new urban, suburban, rural, and industrial development in and around the watershed at odds with pre-existing water appropriation and environmental requirements (e.g., SWRCB, 1995a; 1995b). Certain kinds of common land-uses and road designs supply excess sediment above natural background rates. Some of the major problems in the watershed are summarized below, in no particular order. Demand for water far exceeds water supply, leading to many related subordinate problems, including diminished surface water for endangered steelhead trout. Extensive urbanization exists within the regulatory 100-year floodplain and in the dam-failure inundation zone. Excess sediment is generated from a very large number of dirt roads, some of which are abandoned, some of which out of compliance with grading ordinances, but most of which are clearly within regulations. Nearly all sub-road drainage culverts are undersized, leading to downstream erosion, whether related to dirt roads, paved roads, or highways. Excess sediment is generated by a great number of bare road cuts on dirt roads, paved roads, and highways. Excess sediment is generated in the Los Chupines and Sycamore Creek drainages by soil slip, gullies, unstable stream banks, and roads. Many of those issues are related to cattle impacts. Excess sediment is generated in a great number of incised streams that have tall, exposed banks. San Clemente Dam is unsafe owing to sediment burden and proximity to active faults. Decommissioning the San Clemente Dam will likely lead to a significant shift in river morphology and flood response, owing to the restoration of historic bedload transport rates. Los Padres Dam is rapidly infilling with sediment and is also close to active faults. Watershed impairment is the result of incremental, permitted, changes that have a large cumulative impact on the watershed. Closer adherence to the Carmel Valley Master Plan (CVMP, 1996; Appendix C) and County ordinances will foster resource sustainability and aesthetic living conditions. Among the salient points in that document are the following guidelines for development (CVMP, 1996). 1. Preserve the rural character of the Carmel Valley 2. Protect all natural resources with emphasis on biological communities, agricultural lands, the Carmel River and its Riparian corridor, air quality and scenic resources. We note that the large-scale negative impacts we describe in the Carmel Watershed mainly resulted from the cumulative effects of small, insignificant, permitted landscape or hydrologic alterations (e.g., Dunne et al., 2001). With that in mind, guidelines for sustainable resource use could begin with an agreed upon ultimate level of resource use, depletion, or degradation, beyond which, no further landscape or hydrologic alterations will be permitted. Using water supply as an example, the best strategy for sustainability is to determine the total cumulative resource usage, and then stop permitting further requests for resource use when the agreed upon cumulative impact is met—the concept of water rights appropriation. This same “cumulative impact” management strategy could be applied to other cumulative watershed impacts, such as total miles of dirt road per square mile of watershed area, or total area of impervious cover per square mile of watershed area. These strategies can be applied once a cumulative impact target has been established upon sound science, and codified by stakeholder agreement. Considering that the cumulative negative impacts in the watershed are the net result of innumerable, insignificant modifications, we can predict that innumerable, small positive restorative efforts in the watershed would eventually produce large positive impacts on watershed health including water quality and quantity.

Piloting a Water Rights Information System for California

Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment (CLEE) | July 15th, 2021

California’s complex water management challenges are growing and intensifying. Systemic stressors like the more frequent and severe droughts and floods driven by climat

California’s complex water management challenges are growing and intensifying. Systemic stressors like the more frequent and severe droughts and floods driven by climate change are only making it harder to respond. Accordingly, California needs to dramatically improve the ability of local, regional, and State entities to make agile and effective water management decisions. We believe doing so will require enhanced understanding of our water resources and how they align with the needs of a range of agencies and stakeholders. Water rights data provide a crucial opportunity for advancing this understanding. We find that modernizing water rights data is feasible, affordable, and can increase transparency and clarity for better decision-making.

Policy for Maintaining Instream Flows in Northern California Streams

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | September 28th, 2010

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board or Board) adopted this state policy for water quality control on May 4, 2010. This policy is also known as the

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board or Board) adopted this state policy for water quality control on May 4, 2010. This policy is also known as the North Coast Instream Flow Policy. It applies to applications to appropriate water, small domestic use and livestock stockpond registrations, and water right petitions. Water Code section 1259.4, which was added by Assembly Bill 2121 (Stats. 2004, ch. 943, § 3), requires the State Water Board to adopt principles and guidelines for maintaining instream flows in northern California coastal streams as part of state policy for water quality control, for the purposes of water right administration. This policy implements Water Code section 1259.4. The geographic scope of this policy, referred to as the policy area, extends to five counties—Marin, Sonoma, and portions of Napa, Mendocino, and Humboldt counties— and encompasses (1) coastal streams from the Mattole River (originating in Humboldt County) to San Francisco, and (2) coastal streams entering northern San Pablo Bay. This policy focuses on measures that protect native fish populations, with a particular focus on anadromous salmonids (e.g., steelhead trout, coho salmon, and chinook salmon) and their habitat. Beginning in 1996, the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) listed steelhead trout, coho salmon, and chinook salmon as “threatened” under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), respectively. In 2005, the coho salmon’s status was upgraded from threatened to “endangered” on both the ESA and the CESA lists. This policy establishes principles and guidelines for maintaining instream flows for the protection of fishery resources. It does not specify the terms and conditions that will be incorporated into water right permits, licenses, and registrations. It prescribes protective measures regarding the season of diversion, minimum bypass flow, and maximum cumulative diversion. Applicants may choose to implement the policy principles through the regionally protective criteria or site-specific studies. Site-specific studies may be conducted to develop alternative site-specific protective criteria. The policy also limits construction of new onstream dams and contains measures to ensure that approval of new onstream dams does not adversely affect instream flows needed for fishery resources. The policy provides for a watershed-based approach to evaluate the effects of multiple diversions on instream flows within a watershed as an alternative to evaluating water diversion projects on an individual basis. Enforcement requirements contained in this policy include a framework for compliance assurance, prioritization of enforcement cases, and descriptions of enforcement actions. The policy contains guidelines for evaluating whether a proposed water diversion, in combination with existing diversions in a watershed, may affect instream flows needed for the protection of fishery resources.

Public Trust Distrust

William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository | January 1st, 2001

This Comment reviews the theoretical underpinnings of the public trust, a doctrine originating in Roman common Jaw and now constitutionalized by many states, and explores

This Comment reviews the theoretical underpinnings of the public trust, a doctrine originating in Roman common Jaw and now constitutionalized by many states, and explores its contentious reception by green legal theorists. Since Professor Joseph Sax's revival of the doctrine as a vehicle for environmental legal advocacy in the early 1970s, it has been hatled by many ·as the most powerful tool available for protecting natural resource commons and attacked by others who argue that use of the property rights-based doctrine will rectify an ownership approach to natural resources and obstruct the development of more stewardship-oriented legal theories of natural resource management. Discussion focuses on the work of Professor Sax, representing the public trust advocates, and Professor Richard Lazarus, representing the green dissent. The Comment concludes that the green dissent may elide the theoretical growth of the modern constitutionalized version of the doctrine beyond its common Jaw roots.

Racanelli Decision: Detailed summary of the decision

Department of Justice (DOJ) | November 16th, 2007

At their meeting on October 25, 2007, the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force members asked for a summary of United States v. State Water Resources Control Board (1986) 1

At their meeting on October 25, 2007, the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force members asked for a summary of United States v. State Water Resources Control Board (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 82, commonly referred to as the “Racanelli Decision,” after the appellate judge who wrote the opinion. We repeat the Court’s own very short summary of the case, followed by a more detailed summary of the decision.