Comment Letter on the Draft Water Resilience Portfolio for the State of California

Pacific Institute | February 7th, 2020

This comment letter conveys summary comments and suggestions on the draft Water Resilience Portfolio released by California state agencies, drawing on the considerable ex

This comment letter conveys summary comments and suggestions on the draft Water Resilience Portfolio released by California state agencies, drawing on the considerable experience Pacific Institute has around themes of water efficiency, stormwater management, and the Salton Sea. The letter was authored by staff at Pacific Institute and directed to the Governor’s Water Portfolio Program at the California Natural Resources Agency.

Comment Letter on the Draft Water Resilience Portfolio for the State of California Regarding a Multi-Benefit Approach

Pacific Institute | February 7th, 2020

This comment letter focuses on how the California Water Resilience Portfolio can incorporate multiple benefits when prioritizing and funding water management strategies t

This comment letter focuses on how the California Water Resilience Portfolio can incorporate multiple benefits when prioritizing and funding water management strategies throughout the state. It was sent on behalf of a group of interested parties with significant experience in evaluating and considering the multiple benefits of water-related projects, and it was directed to the Governor’s Water Portfolio Program at the California Natural Resources Agency.

Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | July 16th, 2008

For over 50 years, California has been pumping water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for extensive urban and agricultural uses around the state. Today, the Del

For over 50 years, California has been pumping water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for extensive urban and agricultural uses around the state. Today, the Delta is ailing and in urgent need of a new management strategy. This report concludes that building a peripheral canal to carry water around the Delta is the most promising way to balance two critical policy goals: reviving a threatened ecosystem and ensuring a reliable, high-quality water supply for California. More information can be found in the following supporting appendices: Appendix A. Policy and Regulatory Challenges for the Delta of the Future Appendix B. Levee Decisions and Sustainability for the Delta Appendix C. Delta Hydrodynamics and Water Salinity with Future Conditions Appendix D. The Future of the Delta Ecosystem and Its Fish Appendix E. Expert Survey on the Viability of Delta Fish Populations Appendix F. The Economic Costs and Adaptations for Alternative Delta Regulations Appendix G. Peripheral Canal Design and Implementation Options Appendix H. Delta Drinking Water Quality and Treatment Costs Appendix I. The Economic Effects on Agriculture of Water Export Salinity South of the Delta Appendix J. Decision Analysis of Delta Strategies Interactive Map: Voting Patterns on Proposition 9 (Peripheral Canal), June 1982 Interactive Map: A Multi-Purpose, Eco-Friendly Delta Interactive Feature: Delta Island Flooding (With Repairs) Interactive Feature: Delta Island Flooding (No Repairs)

Comparison of U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Reclamation Water-Use Reporting in the Colorado River Basin

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | September 2nd, 2019

The use of water in the United States is arguably one of the most important factors determining water availability at any specific place and time. Numerous local, State,

The use of water in the United States is arguably one of the most important factors determining water availability at any specific place and time. Numerous local, State, and Federal entities develop, compile, and report water-use data, which can lead to confusing or conflicting information. This report was authored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to compare and contrast the two agencies’ water-use information programs in the Colorado River Basin. The report also describes the legal drivers for each program, clarifies confusing terminol- ogy, compares the methods used, and contrasts the information reported by each agency. This detailed comparison demon- strates that these two Federal agencies have different missions, different programmatic drivers, and different user communi- ties, all of which lead to different approaches to water-use data collection, analysis, and reporting. This report highlights those differences and explains why the USGS and Reclamation programs exist and how the data serve different user communities. Even though the two water-use programs are different by design and purpose, the program comparison presented in this report has identified opportunities for closer coordination and sharing of information between the USGS and Reclamation, as well as program components where agency collaboration can improve water-use estimate methodologies. This comparison effort emphasizes that it is incumbent upon each agency to clearly define the meaning of the terms used and the appropri- ate application of the reported information to avoid confusion or the accidental misuse of the information. An additional benefit of this comparison effort is the formation of a joint USGS/ Reclamation water-use team that will continue to investigate opportunities to expand and coordinate future water-use data compilation and reporting.

Concepts and evolution of urban hydrology

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | October 24th, 2024

Conceptual model for salinity in the Central Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Central Valley Drinking Water Policy Workgroup | July 13th, 2007

This report examines the state of knowledge about the causes of salinity increase in the system and opportunities to improve the Delta as a source of municipal and agricu

This report examines the state of knowledge about the causes of salinity increase in the system and opportunities to improve the Delta as a source of municipal and agricultural water supply. It begins with background information about salinity, its measurement, and its impacts. Following that, we present observed salinity in the Bay-Delta system. The conceptual models section, the core of this report, then seeks to explain the forces and processes (drivers) that cause the salinity patterns we observe. The computational models section introduces some of the tools available to assist with salinity management and planning. The last chapter explores the implications of the conceptual model for monitoring and management of salinity.

Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage (Resource Management Strategy)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 29th, 2016

Conjunctive management or conjunctive use refers to the coordinated and planned use and management of both surface water and groundwater resources to maximize the availab

Conjunctive management or conjunctive use refers to the coordinated and planned use and management of both surface water and groundwater resources to maximize the availability and reliability of water supplies in a region to meet various management objectives. Surface water and groundwater resources typically differ significantly in their availability, quality, management needs, and development and use costs. Managing both resources together, rather than in isolation, allows water managers to use the advantages of both resources for maximum benefit. Conjunctive management thus involves the efficient use of both resources through the planned and managed operation of a groundwater basin and a surface water storage system combined through a coordinated conveyance infrastructure. Water is stored in the groundwater basin that is planned to be used later by intentionally recharging the basin when excess water supply is available, for example, during years of above-average surface water supply or through the use of recycled water. The necessity and benefit of conjunctive water management are apparent when surface water and groundwater are hydraulically connected. Well-planned conjunctive management that prevents groundwater depletion by maintaining baseflow to streams and support for ecosystem services not only increases the reliability and the overall amount of water supply in a region, but also provides other benefits such as flood management, environmental water use, and water quality improvement.  

Considerations for Management of the Mouth State of California’s Bar-built Estuaries

Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project | January 10th, 2019

Bar-built estuaries are the dominant estuary type in California, and many of these small estuaries are subject to closure with a sand barrier separating a lagoon

Bar-built estuaries are the dominant estuary type in California, and many of these small estuaries are subject to closure with a sand barrier separating a lagoon estuary from the ocean for days, months or even years. In the lagoon impounded behind the sand barrier, water levels may rise or fall depending on net water budget and water quality extremes may develop. These conditions and the obstruction of fish passage motivate managed breaching of the sand barrier in many systems statewide – an intervention that alleviates or preempts environmental problems, but which also can result in undesirable secondary impacts due to the acute effect of a single breach or the chronic effect of repeated breaching over years. Management decisions are based on an implicit trade-off between anticipated benefits and costs that depend on the values and priorities of stakeholders. This report was written to provide an overview of considerations for managed breaching in California. It presents a synthesis of processes and phenomena related to mouth closure and breaching in general and uses this to identify potential impacts of breaching, without intending any judgment of which impacts are more or less desirable. Three specific systems are reviewed in detail: Los Peñasquitos Lagoon in San Diego County, Scott Creek Estuary in San Mateo County and Russian River Estuary in Sonoma County. While there are fundamental similarities in the closure and breaching cycle across all bar-built estuaries statewide, there is also an immense diversity between these systems due to differences in size, in hydrology (wet north to dry south), and in development (rural, urban, agricultural, road/rail). The local community is likely to develop the best management strategy where there is significant effort and experience in local monitoring, science, and stakeholder consultation. However, where there is limited monitoring, science or consultation, the considerations outlined in this report provide preliminary guidance – and comparison with one of the study systems can provide more specific insight to the potential impacts of breaching management decisions. We synthesize current understanding related to how mouth state influences estuary functions and conditions, which in turn affect ecological services. While both natural and managed breaching affect many processes and phenomena in the estuary, breaching events and managed breaching regimes do not occur in isolation and many other factors affect the estuary functions and conditions, including freshwater inputs, the adjacent landscape, and stressors in the watershed. However, managed breaching is one of very few short-term management options and therefore a valuable adaptive management tool, specifically in systems that are already perturbed or impacted by human encroachment. Although emergency breaches may be required in rare occasions, our recommendation is to develop a breaching strategy for specific systems in which breaching has been used or in which it is likely to be used as a management tool. In this context, we recommend ways in which science can provide improved support for management decisions and identify a few systems in California in which there is already a well-developed, science-based management plan. Associated document: "Wetlands on the Edge: The Future of Southern California's Wetlands - Regional Strategy 2018"

Considerations for Selecting Climate Projections for Water Resources, Planning, and Environmental Analyses

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | March 2nd, 2016

For over a century, Reclamation’s mission has focused on managing water resources in the Western United States. Water resources, planning, and environmental studies car

For over a century, Reclamation’s mission has focused on managing water resources in the Western United States. Water resources, planning, and environmental studies carried out to support Reclamation’s mission have routinely considered hydrologic variability, including variability of water supplies and demands from season to season and year to year. Because weather and climate are two of the primary drivers of water supply and demand, Reclamation studies have also routinely considered weather and climate variability. The SECURE Water Act directs Reclamation to evaluate the risks and impacts of climate change in long-range planning and decision making (see Section 1.1. of the main report), including: •Water resources and environmental analyses •Planning studies •Design and analysis of current and proposed infrastructure and operating plans Considering climate change involves analyzing projected changes in weather and climate conditions as well as the effects of these changes on water supplies, demands, and management.  This document provides an overview of the primary considerations relevant to selecting climate projection information for use in a given water resources, planning, or environmental analysis. Audience For technical specialists involved in selecting and using climate projections for a given study—e.g., climatologist, hydrologists, and water resources engineers— this document provides a brief overview of the models and methods used to develop climate projections (Section 2.) and relevant considerations for selecting an appropriate climate projection dataset and set of climate projections to meet their specific study objectives (Section 3.). This document also provides a detailed summary of available climate projection datasets (Section 4.) and established methods for selecting climate projections for use in a detailed analysis (Section 5.). For other study team members involved in interpreting and documenting the use of climate change information in a given study—e.g., planners, environmental specialists, and resource managers—this document provides an overview of how climate projections are developed (Section 2.) and the choices and considerations involved in selecting climate projections for analysis in the study (Section 3.).

Contribution of historical precipitation change to US flood damages

Publisher not available | January 26th, 2021

Precipitation extremes have increased across many regions of the United States, with further increases anticipated in response to additional global warming. Quantifying

Precipitation extremes have increased across many regions of the United States, with further increases anticipated in response to additional global warming. Quantifying the impact of these precipitation changes on flood damages is necessary to estimate the costs of climate change. However, there is little empirical evidence linking changes in precipitation to the historically observed increase in flood losses. We use >6,600 reports of state-level flood damage to quantify the historical relationship between precipitation and flood damages in the United States. Our results show a significant, positive effect of both monthly and 5-d state-level precipitation on state-level flood damages. In addition, we find that historical precipitation changes have contributed approximately one-third of cumulative flood damages over 1988 to 2017 (primary estimate 36%; 95% CI 20 to 46%), with the cumulative impact of precipitation change totaling $73 billion (95% CI 39 to $91 billion). Further, climate models show that anthropogenic climate forcing has increased the probability of exceeding precipitation thresholds at the extremely wet quantiles that are responsible for most flood damages. Climate models project continued intensification of wet conditions over the next three decades, although a trajectory consistent with UN Paris Agreement goals significantly curbs that intensification. Taken together, our results quantify the contribution of precipitation trends to recent increases in flood damages, advance estimates of the costs associated with historical greenhouse gas emissions, and provide further evidence that lower levels of future warming are very likely to reduce financial losses relative to the current global warming trajectory.