Record of Decision, Trump Administration Action 5 Operations Plan for the Central Valley and State Water Projects, per Executive Order 14181

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | December 4th, 2025

On January 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14181 “Emergency Measures To Provide Water Resources In California And Improve Disaster Response I

On January 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14181 “Emergency Measures To Provide Water Resources In California And Improve Disaster Response In Certain Areas.” A Presidential Memorandum titled “Putting People Over Fish” was signed four days before the Executive Order and references a reliable water supply, but the specific direction to the CVP is found in Executive Order 14181. Section 2 of Executive Order 14181 requires, among other measures, (c) The Secretary of the Interior, including through the Bureau of Reclamation, shall utilize his discretion to operate the CVP to deliver more water and produce additional hydropower, including by increasing storage and conveyance, and jointly operating federal and state facilities, to high­need communities, notwithstanding any contrary State or local laws. The Bureau of Reclamation shall take all available measures to ensure that State agencies — including the California Department of Water Resources — do not interfere with the Bureau of Reclamation’s operation of the project to maximize water delivery to high­need communities or otherwise, including but not limited to the issuance of a new Record of Decision maximizing water deliveries and consistent with the 2020 Record of Decision. Subsection (g) calls for a “proposed plan, for review by the Secretaries, to appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind any regulations or procedures that unduly burden such projects and are not necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law.” This ROD implements initial actions in response to Executive Order 14181. Click here for the Reclamation Long Term Operations page,  here for response to the Trump Action 5 gambit from California Department of Water Resources, and here for the response from the State Water Resources Control Board

Report on Voluntary Diversion Reduction Program Among in-Delta Riparian Water Right Claimants

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | March 11th, 2016

Facing a fourth consecutive year of drought in 2015 and consequential threat of curtailments, farmers in the Delta proposed a voluntary program to significantly reduce th

Facing a fourth consecutive year of drought in 2015 and consequential threat of curtailments, farmers in the Delta proposed a voluntary program to significantly reduce their surface water diversions during the critical summer growing season. This is a report describing the context, origin, objectives, regulatory framework, implementation and results of that program.

Rethinking Old Rights

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) | November 1st, 2023

Review of CDFW Recommendations for the 2022 Readoption of Drought Emergency Regulations on the Scott River and Recommendations for Future Management During Extreme Drought Conditions

Siskiyou Farm Bureau | August 31st, 2022

Review of the Laws Establishing the SWRCB's Permitting Authority over Appropriations of Groundwater Classified as Subterranean Streams and the SWRCB’s Implementation of those Laws

Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository | January 19th, 2002

Introduction 1. A Brief Description of Groundwater: The Law and the Reality 2. Questions Addressed in this Report 3. Responses to the Questions Posed by the Board P

Introduction 1. A Brief Description of Groundwater: The Law and the Reality 2. Questions Addressed in this Report 3. Responses to the Questions Posed by the Board Part I: The Legal Background of the Water Commission Act 1. The Pomeroy Case 2. The Pomeroy Case in its Historical Context 3. Doing the Job Pomeroy Failed to Do: Katz v. Walkinshaw and Los Angeles v. Hunter Part II: The Statutory Response 1. The Water Commission Act of 1913 2. Subsequent Legislative Developments Part III: The Board’s Current Implementation of the Law Governing Subterranean Streams Flowing Through Known and Definite Channels 1. Recent Board Decisions a. Garrapata Creek b. Draft Decision, Pauma and Pala Basins 2. Older Board Decisions a. Sheep Creek, San Bernardino County b. Stony Creek, Colusa County c. Chorro and Morro Creeks, San Luis Obispo County d. Tia Juana River, San Diego County e. Carmel River, Monterey County f. Sacramento River Groundwater Transfer, Yolo County g. San Luis Rey River, San Diego County (Mission and Bonsall Basins) Part IV: Groundwater Law in Other States 1. Arizona 2. Other Western States 3. Nebraska 4. Oregon 5. Colorado Part V: Management of Groundwater Outside Water Code § 1200 1. Overlying Uses of Groundwater 2. Other Sources of Authority Over Use of Groundwater a. Constitution Article X, § 2, Water Code § 100, The Public Trust, and Water Code § 275 b. Remedies for Impairment of Water Rights Part VI: Should the Legal Test Be Changed? Appendices A: Draft of Proposed Water Commission Bill B-1: Assembly Bill No. 642 (1913) (as introduced Jan. 23, 1913). B-2: Assembly Bill No. 642 (1913) (as amended in Senate May 10, 1913) C: Water Commission Act of 1913 D: Transcripts of Hearings on Proposed Water Commission Bill E: Memos from Technical Advisory Committee Members

Revised Water Right Decision 1641

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | December 29th, 1999

Royce Tipton and the Hydrology of the 1944 Treaty with Mexico

John Fleck | May 26th, 2025

Ruling on Motions for Preliminary Injunction in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. California Department of Water Resources

Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento | June 20th, 2024

Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for 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 | October 30th, 2023

San Antonio Water Company v. Foothill Irrigation Company, et al

Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino | July 25th, 1958

From "An Evaluation of California's Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "The Cucamonga Basin is a small groundwater basin located in San Bernardino Co

From "An Evaluation of California's Adjudicated Groundwater Basins" by Langridge et al: "The Cucamonga Basin is a small groundwater basin located in San Bernardino County. In the 1950s, approximately 25 parties, mostly small local water companies and several individual water users, filed an action to adjudicate the rights to the basin’s groundwater and certain surface waters tributary to the basin. The subsequent adjudication resulted in a 1958 Decree that contains some provisions for the metering and recording of water production, inspection of records, prohibitions against new water production, and potential reductions in water production. The court did not appoint an official Watermaster for the basin, and annual reports are not required. Since adjudication, water use in the basin has shifted from primarily agricultural use to primarily municipal use. Today there are three main water agencies — Cucamonga Valley Water District, San Antonio Water Company, and West End Consolidated Water Company — that hold nearly all of the adjudicated rights in the basin and jointly manage the basin pursuant to the 1958 Decree. Studies differ regarding the condition of the basin. A 2007 Metropolitan Water District review indicates that water levels in key wells have decreased about 120 feet and that the basin is experiencing long-term decline. Basin managers point to production data that also shows water production in the basin can trend below the total allocated rights production data."