Empirical and Experimental Analyses of Secondary Louver Efficiency at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility: March 1996 to November 1997

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | January 30th, 2004

Endangered Species Status for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) | July 30th, 2024

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for the San Francisco Ba

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for the San Francisco Bay-Delta distinct population segment (DPS) of longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), a fish species of the Pacific Coast. This rule extends the protections of the Act to this DPS and adds it to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.... This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we received on the proposed rule are available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0082. Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials we used in preparing this rule, such as the species status assessment report, are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0082.

Enduring Solutions on the Colorado River

Arizona State University (ASU) | August 16th, 2024

As we work to reduce water use on the post-2026 Colorado River, two paths lie open before us. One is to incentivize conservation by giving water users the chance to bank

As we work to reduce water use on the post-2026 Colorado River, two paths lie open before us. One is to incentivize conservation by giving water users the chance to bank saved water for later use. Known most commonly as Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS), and more broadly in a series of increasingly creative implementations as “Assigned Water,” this creates short term savings. But in the long run, the approach entitles the users to take the water back out of thE bank. The other involves permanent reductions – “System Water.” Water use is reduced for the benefit of the Colorado River as a whole. Investment in Assigned Water, attractive to water managers because of the allure that they can get their water back, has crowded out investment in the more durable System Water reductions that will be needed to bring the Colorado River into balance. As we develop new operating rules for the river, we need to be mindful of the differences involved. Accounting for water as Assigned Water is a means to reduce total water use in the short-term but the basin requires a means to reduce total water use over the long-term. Enduring solutions on the river can only be found by addressing overallocation, which at its most basic means that there needs to be more unassigned water in Lake Mead. Click here for Part II

Enduring Solutions on the Colorado River Part II Floating Pools and Grand Bargains

Arizona State University (ASU) | April 18th, 2025

Conserving water now in reservoir savings banks, as a hedge against future risks associated with drought and declining flows, has emerged as one of the central tools for

Conserving water now in reservoir savings banks, as a hedge against future risks associated with drought and declining flows, has emerged as one of the central tools for managing the Colorado River. The Lower Basin "Intentionally Created Surplus" program, created in the 2007 Interim Guidelines, has shown the idea's promise and given the basin nearly two decades to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. With tweaks to allow similar efforts in the Upper Basin and other modifications based on what we have learned about the current ICS approach, such "Floating Pools" are one of the key tools being considered as negotiators try to thread the needle of a seven-state agreement for post-2026 Colorado River management.mDone properly, they have the potential to finesse the states' disagreement over the terms of the 1922 Colorado River Compact in a way that could avoid potentially disruptive litigation. But getting the details right will be crucial to the development of an enduring bargain that can help the basin avoid the risk of interstate litigation. Click here for Part 1

Essential Pillars for the Post-2026 Colorado River Guidelines

John Fleck | April 25th, 2025

Estuary News, April 2003

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | April 15th, 2003

Estuary News, August 2000

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | August 15th, 2000

Estuary News, December 2003

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | December 15th, 2003

Estuary News, February 2010

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | February 15th, 2010

Estuary News, June 1998

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | June 15th, 1998