Salinity Incursion and Water Resources, Appendix to Bulletin No. 76, Delta Water Facilities

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | April 16th, 1962

Data and analyses contained in this appendix were utilized to determine the present and future quantity and quality of water supplies within the Delta and to determine

Data and analyses contained in this appendix were utilized to determine the present and future quantity and quality of water supplies within the Delta and to determine the conditions under which the State Water Facilities must operate within the Delta with the various facilities proposed in Bulletin No. 76 constructed therein. In general, the conditions imposed result from conservative assumptions of available water supply and Delta channel hydraulics.

San Francisco Bay: A Freshwater Starved Estuary

Bay Institute | September 1st, 2016

How Reducing Flows Harms the Ecosystems of San Francisco Bay and Coastal Waters The Bay Institute’s major new study, San Francisco Bay: The Freshwater – Starved Estu

How Reducing Flows Harms the Ecosystems of San Francisco Bay and Coastal Waters The Bay Institute’s major new study, San Francisco Bay: The Freshwater – Starved Estuary, documents how the ecological health of San Francisco Bay and the nearby ocean is at high risk because large-scale water diversion in the Bay’s watershed severely limits the amount of fresh water that reaches the Bay and alters the timing of that flow. Inflow to the Bay from its Central Valley watershed now averages less than half of what it would be without diversions; in some years just one-third of the runoff makes it to the Bay. The result is a nearly permanent drought for the Bay’s fish, wildlife, and their habitats. This radical alteration creates severe consequences for the Bay and marine ecosystems – and Bay Area residents pay the price. The study shows how unsustainable diversion of the Bay’s freshwater inflow: Dramatically cuts production of fish and shrimp that are the food source for marine mammals, like Orca Whales, and birds; Allows pollutants to accumulate to dangerous levels and encourages blooms of toxic algae; Reduces sediment supply to Bay Area wetlands and beaches; Makes it easier for undesirable non-native species to successfully invade the Bay Estuary. The San Francisco Bay Estuary is created by the mixing of fresh water from the Central Valley’s rivers with salt water from the Pacific Ocean. Dramatically reducing the inflow of fresh water generates cascading effects in the Bay’s watershed, the Bay itself, and coastal ocean waters. The report’s major findings include: On average, since 1975 more than half (53%) of runoff from the Central Valley watershed has been diverted, stored, or exported before it can reach the Bay – and in many years two-thirds or more of the Bay’s inflow is captured; As a result of intensive water diversions, the Bay experiences catastrophically dry years almost half the time (only one “supercritically dry” year occurred naturally between 1975-2014, but the Bay experienced nineteen supercritical years during that period); Numerous unrelated fish species – from sharks to salmon, from sturgeon to smelt – show strong positive correlations with Bay Inflow; many of these species are now endangered, and even commercially viable fisheries are in decline; Predators that feed on flow-dependent fish and shrimp are feeling the pinch – for example, dwindling supplies of Central Valley Chinook salmon may restrict the recovery of the local Orca whale population; Blooms of toxic “algae” (cyanobacteria) are becoming more frequent, and other pollutants are becoming more concentrated, as a result of reductions in freshwater flows from the Bay’s watershed; Bay Area beaches and tidal wetlands are deprived of sediment that was once transported by high river flows. The study reports that local businesses are likely to suffer from the Bay’s continued decline, including those related to commercial fishing and tourism. As our Bay, beaches, wetlands, and fish and wildlife populations deteriorate, the quality of life for many Bay Area residents will also be severely – and perhaps permanently – damaged. The study identifies four important approaches to improving Bay inflows: Update the State’s 21 year old water quality standards for the Bay Estuary to ensure adequate inflow Require all those who divert water destined for the Bay, not just a subset, to contribute their fair share of fresh water to support benefits enjoyed by all Californians Invest in local water supplies around the state including conservation, and recycling, that can generate millions of acre-feet of water and reduce reliance on water diverted from the Estuary and its watershed Coordinate management of flows with wetland and beach restoration to more effectively protect shorelines The study was prepared for the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, a coalition of resource agencies, non-profits, citizens, and scientists working to protect, restore, and enhance water quality and fish and wildlife habitat in and around the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary, which also provided the majority of funding for the project.

San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | November 9th, 2007

Historically, Central California’s San Joaquin River supported large Chinook salmon populations. Since the Bureau of Reclamation’s Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River

Historically, Central California’s San Joaquin River supported large Chinook salmon populations. Since the Bureau of Reclamation’s Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River became fully operational in the 1940s, much of the river’s water has been diverted for off-stream agricultural uses. As a result, approximately 60 miles of the river bed is dry in most years. Thus, the river no longer supports Chinook salmon populations in its upper reaches. In 1988, a coalition of conservation and fishing groups sued Reclamation (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers). A U.S. District Court judge has ruled that operation of Friant Dam violates state law because of its destruction of downstream fisheries. Faced with mounting legal fees, uncertainty, and the possibility of dramatic cuts to water diversions, parties negotiated a settlement instead of proceeding to trial. In September 2006, an agreement, commonly called the Settlement, was reached. It calls for new releases of water from Friant Dam to restore fisheries, as well as for efforts to mitigate reductions in off-stream deliveries lost to restoration flows. Congressional authorization and appropriations are required for full Settlement implementation. Legislation based on the Settlement (H.R. 4074, H.R. 24 and S. 27) is pending. Related bills have also been introduced. A key legislative issue is how to finance the Settlement, specifically how to resolve congressional pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) issues. Other challenges are how to achieve the Settlement’s dual goals of fisheries restoration and water management, and how to address concerns of stakeholders not party to the Settlement, without disrupting the negotiated agreement. The amount of water projected for restoration flows and the volume of reduced Friant water deliveries are related, but the relationship would not necessarily be one-for-one. Available estimates for total annual Friant water supplies (including both contract and temporary water) are, on average, 15% to 16% less under the Settlement than under current operations; but such estimates do not account for improvements in water management that might reduce the impact on water users. For three-quarters of water contractors, the reduction would represent a reduction in one of their available sources of water. The impacts of such reductions will vary by contractor depending on the firmness of existing surface water supplies and the reliability of groundwater supplies. How to offset the decrease and who would pay for investments in other water sources and improved efficiency has not been determined. Although the region may benefit from increased recreational expenditures and investment in river restoration activities under the Settlement, studies suggest its largest and mostly negative economic impact would be on the agriculture industry, at least in the short term. In addition, downsteam interests not party to the Settlement have been concerned about increased flooding, groundwater infiltration, and competition with existing federal financial commitments. Nearby communities fear harm to groundwater quantity and quality. Some of these concerns have been addressed in the legislation, but some remain. On the other hand, some communities and interests believe restoration will bring other benefits to the river, such as improved surface water quality in lower San Joaquin River reaches. Ultimate Settlement costs and benefits are very difficult to predict.

San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District

United States District Court, Central District of California | September 23rd, 2022

Scoping Report for Post-2026 Colorado River Reservoir Operations Upper and Lower Colorado Basin Regions

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | October 19th, 2023

This scoping summary was prepared to document the scoping process for the Post-2026 Colorado River Reservoir Operations (Post-2026 process). As several important reservoi

This scoping summary was prepared to document the scoping process for the Post-2026 Colorado River Reservoir Operations (Post-2026 process). As several important reservoir and water management decisional documents and agreements that govern operation of Colorado River facilities and management of Colorado River water are scheduled to expire at the end of 2026, the Post-2026 process has been initiated to develop successor domestic Colorado River operational guidelines and strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

Scrutinizing the Delta Cross Channel

CALFED | June 1st, 2001

Sediment Mobility and River Corridor Assessment for a 140-Kilometer Segment of the Main-Stem Klamath River Below Iron Gate Dam, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | January 26th, 2021

This river corridor assessment documents sediment mobility and river response to flood disturbance along a 140-kilometer segment of the main-stem Klamath River below Iron

This river corridor assessment documents sediment mobility and river response to flood disturbance along a 140-kilometer segment of the main-stem Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam, California. Field and remote sensing methods were used to assess fundamental indicators of active sediment transport and river response to a combination of natural runoff events and reservoir releases during the study period from 2005 to 2019. Discharge measurements at two gaged sites and bed-material samples at two ungaged sites provided direct and indirect evidence of mobile bed conditions, scour and fill, and surface flushing of fine sediment. Available remote-sensing datasets collected in 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2016 were used to determine sediment storage, flood inundation boundaries, and provide indirect evidence of flood-induced scour. These datasets validate channel-maintenance flows defined by Shea and others (2016). During the study period, flows greater than or equal to 6,030 cubic feet per second mobilized the substrate, caused localized scour, and flushed fine sediment from bar surfaces. Flows greater than or equal to 10,400 cubic feet per second stripped vegetation from bars and floodplains and produced deeper scour. Flood disturbance within the study reach is produced by the combined effect of natural flows and reservoir releases, which resulted in mobile bed conditions during the study period. Periodic scour and substrate disturbance are considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be integral for managing disease-induced mortality of juvenile and adult salmonids. Substrate conditions conducive to parasites that host infectious diseases, particularly Ceratonova shasta, occur periodically. Additional studies are required to determine whether disease prevalence can be mitigated by well-timed reservoir releases. Study results are useful for interpreting linkages among physical and biological processes and for evaluating the effectiveness of flow management targeted to improve river bed conditions for endangered salmonid populations.

Selected Federal Water Activities: Agencies, Authorities, and Congressional Committees

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | ?

More than two centuries of federal water resource activity have resulted in a complex web of federal involvement in water resource development, management, protection, an

More than two centuries of federal water resource activity have resulted in a complex web of federal involvement in water resource development, management, protection, and use. As a result, Congress faces challenges related to overlap and gaps in federal water resource activities and in coordination and consistency among federal programs. Further, many federal authorities are discretionary or funded by discretionary appropriations. Consequently, there can be a significant difference between what federal agencies are authorized to do and what they are actually doing, and no one committee in Congress oversees this dichotomy. Although the responsibility for development, management, protection, and allocation of the nation’s water resources is spread among federal, state, local, tribal, and private interests, this report focuses on federal activities related to water and the congressional committees that authorize and oversee these activities. The report covers multiple topics and individual water-related subtopics ranging from water supply and water quality infrastructure to fisheries management and water rights. The report is not exhaustive; instead, the authors have attempted to cover the major federal activities authorized by Congress that affect water resource development, management, protection, and use in the United States. Similarly, the analysis does not cover every aspect of House and Senate committee jurisdiction affecting water issues. For definitive evaluation of committee jurisdictions related to water, the views of the House and Senate Parliamentarian Offices are official. The report covers four general areas, or themes: (1) “Water Resources Development, Management, and Use”; (2) “Water Quality, Protection, and Restoration”; (3) “Water Rights and Allocation”; and (4) “Research and Planning.” The sections addressing these themes are further divided into tables that list topic areas and individual water-related subtopics. For each subtopic, CRS has identified selected federal agencies and activities related to the subtopic, authorities for such activities, and relevant House and Senate committee jurisdictions, as specified in House and Senate rules. Appendixes address considerations in determining House and Senate committee jurisdictions and present the official language from House Rule X and Senate Rule XXV, respectively, which are indicators of congressional jurisdiction over water resources. The report also includes a glossary of abbreviations for federal agencies and House and Senate committees. The nine tables that make up the body of this report underscore the complexity of federal activities affecting water resource development, management, protection, and use in the United States. As apparent throughout these tables, numerous standing committees in the House and the Senate have jurisdiction over various components of federal water policy. The wide range of federal executive responsibilities for water resources reflects comparably complex congressional legislative responsibilities and directives.

Shasta Dam Fish Passage Evaluation – Pilot Implementation Plan – U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | September 1st, 2015

Small Populations in Jeopardy: A Delta Smelt Case Study

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) | February 21st, 2021

Under §7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, federal agencies must ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are “not likely to jeopardize the continue

Under §7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, federal agencies must ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species.” For species with low and declining populations, applying this standard is legally and scientifically difficult. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) faced this problem in its recent biological opinion (BiOp) analyzing impacts to threatened Delta smelt from water project operations in the California Delta. FWS concluded the “species’ recent abundance trends strongly suggest it is in the midst of demographic collapse,” and most recent surveys to locate smelt have failed to find them. Nevertheless, FWS approved agency actions that will likely increase extinction risk for Delta smelt. This Comment illustrates, through a case study of the Delta smelt BiOp, the difficulties in making ESA jeopardy determinations for species on the brink of extinction. We conclude that the myriad challenges inherent in conservation of some small and declining populations make reasoned §7 analysis difficult, bordering on impossible.