California Environmental Flows Framework

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | March 31st, 2021

Multiple local, regional, and State agencies share responsibility for managing environmental flows, defined as the water required to protect the ecological health of Cali

Multiple local, regional, and State agencies share responsibility for managing environmental flows, defined as the water required to protect the ecological health of California streams while balancing human uses and other water management objectives. The process of developing environmental flow recommendations is complex, often involving multi-component technical studies and lengthy public discussions that can take years to complete. Although many environmental flow assessment tools exist, managers are often constrained to using either time-intensive, site-specific studies or a limited set of rapid desktop and regional approaches that have not been tailored to California. Furthermore, environmental flow assessments have not always been consistently designed and implemented in a way that allows data to be aggregated and shared, making it difficult to accelerate learning and improve the effectiveness of environmental flows in supporting the ecological health of California’s rivers and streams. Water managers need a consistent statewide approach that can help transform complex environmental data into scientifically defensible, easy-to-understand environmental flow recommendations that support a broad range of ecosystem functions1 and preserve the multitude of benefits provided by healthy rivers and streams. Having a consistent statewide approach would also improve statewide data compatibility and promote coordinated regional flow assessments that would benefit multiple agency programs working to improve the scale and pacing at which environmental flow protections can be extended to rivers and streams across the state.

California Fish and Game, Volume 47

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | July 1st, 1961

California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program Priority Basin Project: Domestic-Supply Assessment

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | March 14th, 2024

California Hydraulic Mining under the Caminetti Act

Scientific American | July 21st, 1900

The gold deposits of California are, for a large part, contained in gravel beds once the channel of rivers which formed the drainage of the west slope of th

The gold deposits of California are, for a large part, contained in gravel beds once the channel of rivers which formed the drainage of the west slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In the course of ages new rivers were formed, leaving the ancient gravel beds elevated often hundreds of feet above the river beds of the present. The depth of the gravel in the old channels is often several hundred feet and the width across them frequently one-half mile, while their courses may be traced for thirty or forty miles in length in detached sections, which are the remnants of once continuous beds. Denudation and the cutting down of the present streams has removed parts of the ancient channels and they often disappear below the surface for several miles underneath coverings of lava which have been spread over them ...  Hydraulic mining became an immense industry. At the time when it had reached its greatest development it was estimated that more than one hundred millions of dollars had been invested in the construction of water supplies, mining plant, tunnels, and flumes, and more than two million dollars have been spent in the equipment of a single mine. Everything was upon an immense scale, and the amounts of gravel removed were in proportion. So large, in fact, that the material washed into the streams caused blockages over spreading agricultural lands in the Sacramento Valley, obstructing and raising the beds of the navigable rivers which enter San Francisco Bay, causing inundations at times of flood, and generally making its influence noticeable 200 miles from the seat of mining. In 1880 it was estimated that in the bed of the Yuba River alone there were stored more than one hundred and forty million cubic yards of accumulations, and the bed of the river had spread over a width of two and one-half miles between the side levees built to confine the spread of the deposits.

California Law at the Intersection of Water Use and Land Planning: A Report for the California Office of Planning and Research

University of California College of the Law, San Francisco (UC Law SF) | May 13th, 2015

There are no laws in California that require coordination between land planners and water regulators. A local planning commission may approve a new subdivision ev

There are no laws in California that require coordination between land planners and water regulators. A local planning commission may approve a new subdivision even though there may not be enough water to supply the new development. Moreover, local water authorities and the Water Resources Control Board are under no obligation to provide water to developers if the developers do not hold title to a valid claim to water rights. The following survey and report represents a first comprehensive attempt to surface laws that lie at the intersection of land management and water regulations, offering several recommendations for ways in which existing laws can be used to facilitate better coordination between land planners and water managers. These recommendations, contained in Chapters IV-VI, suggest: Redefining the “coordination” requirement of the conservation element in general plans to facilitate coordination; Applying the Groundwater Sustainability Management Act’s sustainability goals to facilitate coordination; Utilizing well moratoria to facilitate coordination while limiting unsustainable growth. This report also contains a summary of our methodology in Chapter II, a historical overview of the relationship between land use and water law in California in Chapter III, and a survey of existing laws and constitutional provisions that are relevant to both land use and water management in Chapters VII and VIII. We hope that this report will serve as a useful tool for lawmakers and regulators to help achieve water security and sustainability for future generations.

California Non-Point Source Encyclopedia

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | July 20th, 2004

The goal of this guidance document is to provide the best, most relevant information to State agencies, regional boards, local agencies, and nonpoint source (NPS) practit

The goal of this guidance document is to provide the best, most relevant information to State agencies, regional boards, local agencies, and nonpoint source (NPS) practitioners to assist them in identifying and implementing practices to protect high-quality waters and restore impaired waters. This guidance document is not applicable to any facilities that are considered point sources under the Clean Water Act, including confined animal facilities that are Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) as defined by USEPA. The guidance is organized around the six NPS categories identified in the Plan for California's Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program of 2000: agriculture, forestry, urban areas, marinas and recreational boating, hydromodification, and wetlands/riparian areas/vegetated treatment systems. It supports the plan's goal of implementing the 61 NPS management measures by 2013. It also supports the implementation of NPS total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), as well as the development of TMDL implementation plans and watershed plans. A companion set of tools will also be available through the Internet to assist users in identifying potential management practices and estimating the effectiveness of those practices in managing pollution.

California Non-point Source Program Implementation Plan 2014 - 2020

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | August 5th, 2015

The 2014 - 2020 California Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program Implementation Plan (NPS Program Implementation Plan) describes how the State will be using its resources to effe

The 2014 - 2020 California Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program Implementation Plan (NPS Program Implementation Plan) describes how the State will be using its resources to effectively prevent NPS pollution from impacting surface water and groundwater in California. The vision for the CA NPS Program is to restore and protect the beneficial uses of the State’s waters through the reduction of NPS pollution and attaining water quality objectives. This document serves as an update to the CA NPS Program Plan as approved by U.S. EPA and NOAA in 2000. As such, California will continue to implement a comprehensive statewide program working to implement management measures to address NPS pollution consistent with U.S. EPA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration approval.

California regulation of agricultural runoff

American Bar Association (ABA) | November 1st, 2017

Agriculture in California is a multibillion dollar industry that produces more than half of the nation’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables. But this comes at a cost. Agricul

Agriculture in California is a multibillion dollar industry that produces more than half of the nation’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables. But this comes at a cost. Agriculture is the primary source of water pollution, with irrigation and rainfall sweeping excess fertilizers and pesticides off the fields into adjoining waters and, over time, leaching into groundwater. As a result, waterbodies—spanning roughly 8,000 miles of rivers and streams and 300,000 acres of lakes, bays, and wetlands—are impaired.

California State Water Project 2006 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 20th, 2007

The State Water Project (SWP) provides drinking water to approximately two-thirds of California’s population and is the nation’s largest state-built water development

The State Water Project (SWP) provides drinking water to approximately two-thirds of California’s population and is the nation’s largest state-built water development project. The SWP extends from the mountains of Plumas County in the Feather River watershed to Lake Perris in Riverside County. It is linked with the Central Valley Project (CVP) that extends from southern Oregon in the Sacramento River watershed to the Mendota Pool. The watershed of the SWP is vast; encompassing the 27,000-square-mile Sacramento River and 13,000-square-mile San Joaquin River watersheds and at times, the 13,000-square-mile Tulare Basin watershed. The contaminant sources in the SWP watersheds have been well documented in the three previous sanitary surveys. The California Department of Health Services (CDHS) requested that the 2006 Update address the Jones Tract levee failure and emergency response procedures, efforts to coordinate pathogen monitoring in response to the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), and a review of significant changes to the watersheds and their impacts on water quality.   A Technical Review Committee (TRC) was formed to guide development of the scope of work and provide technical expertise and review of the draft report. In addition to addressing the issues raised by CDHS, the TRC determined that the 2006 Update should focus on evaluating the sources of the water quality problems that the SWP Contractors face and recommending actions that the SWP Contractors can take that will lead to improvements in water quality over the next five years. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 REGULATORY SETTING CHAPTER 3 WATER QUALITY IN THE WATERSHEDS AND THE STATE WATER PROJECT CHAPTER 4 KEY CONCERNS IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY WATERSHED AND THE DELTA CHAPTER 5 KEY CONCERNS WITH STATE WATER PROJECT FACILITIES CHAPTER 6 INCIDENTS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEASURES CHAPTER 7 CONCERNS WITH SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

California Wetland and Riparian Area Protection Policy Technical Memorandum No. 5: Stream Definition

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | April 20th, 2016

With this memorandum, the Technical Advisory Team (TAT) recommends a definition of California streams to the Policy Development Team (PDT) of the State Water Quality Cont

With this memorandum, the Technical Advisory Team (TAT) recommends a definition of California streams to the Policy Development Team (PDT) of the State Water Quality Control Board (State Water Board) for its Wetland and Riparian Area Protection Policy (WRAPP). This memorandum does not recommend any process or procedure for identifying, delineating, or classifying streams, nor are such recommendations being planned by the TAT at this time. However, the TAT recommends that such processes and procedures should be developed in the future to support the WRAPP. The California Wetland Monitoring Workgroup (CWMW) is preparing recommendations for stream mapping as part of the recommending methodology of the California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI).