The State Water Project Delivery Capability Report 2023 Addendum - Impacts of Subsidence

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | May 7th, 2025

The purpose of this addendum is to show how ongoing subsidence effects on the California Aqueduct will impact operation of the State Water Project (SWP). The addendum pro

The purpose of this addendum is to show how ongoing subsidence effects on the California Aqueduct will impact operation of the State Water Project (SWP). The addendum provides information to SWP water users about a potential range of water delivery impacts over the next 20 years if no corrective action is taken to address the subsidence effects. However, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is committed to restore the conveyance capacity of the California Aqueduct and has an engineering plan for near-term fixes. DWR is also working with its partners to secure additional funding sources for this work. DWR is confident that the California Aqueduct capacity will be restored and the SWP will not see the impacts outlined in this addendum. Thus, long-term water supply planning activities by water users should rely on the potential future SWP allocation results presented in the 2023 Delivery Capability Report (DCR 2023) released in 2024.

The U.S. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Water Components

Pacific Institute | November 12th, 2021

On November 5, 2021, the U.S. Congress passed President Biden’s major infrastructure bill, HR 3684, the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The Presid

On November 5, 2021, the U.S. Congress passed President Biden’s major infrastructure bill, HR 3684, the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The President is expected to sign the bill into law. The bill is the largest single federal investment in infrastructure in a generation, with the funds to be expended over five years. It aims to rebuild and replace failing, aging, and outdated water, energy, transportation, and communications systems. As the first significant federal investment in climate resilience, it also begins to address the growing consequences of climate change, including intensifying extreme weather events, increasing temperatures, and rising sea levels, on communities throughout the United States. One key component of the Act is the set of proposals to address the wide range of water-related challenges facing the United States. This Pacific Institute analysis provides an overview of how the Infrastructure Act addresses these challenges.

Toward a Vibrant, Prosperous, and Sustainable Fresno County: Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Midst of Rapid Change

California Energy Commission (CEC) | July 31st, 2012

Fresno County is located centrally within the State of California. The central portion of the county makes up part of the state’s breadbasket, the San Joaquin Valley, k

Fresno County is located centrally within the State of California. The central portion of the county makes up part of the state’s breadbasket, the San Joaquin Valley, known for its vast agricultural productivity, whereas the Sierra Nevada Mountains make up the eastern portion of the county providing water from snowmelt and varied opportunities for recreation.  Fresno County recently began making a significant investment in its economic vitality and the well-being and quality of life of its residents through the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint. Aside the growing pressures and challenges that accompany further population growth and development, external pressures will also impinge on the county. Climate change – one of these important additional pressures – will impact Fresno in a variety of ways, some potentially severe, with direct impacts on its people, its all-important agricultural sector (and related economic activity), its supporting infrastructure and services, as well as the natural environment on which much of the county’s economy, rural character, and quality of life directly depend. This report details current vulnerabilities to weather- and climate-related changes and extreme events in Fresno, and explores how climate change may exacerbate or change them in the decades ahead. The report draws on publicly available reports, plans, and data repositories available from local (municipal and county), state, federal and nongovernmental sources as well as on peer-reviewed research papers. For the social vulnerability assessment, original research was conducted to assess differential vulnerabilities among San Luis Obispo’s population. Other assessments of vulnerability rest on the critical assessment of current conditions as ascertained from the existing information. This report provides a review of the region’s projected climate change and existing demographics and economic industries and infrastructure. Among the most critical additional stresses from climate warming are increased average seasonal temperatures; longer, more intense heat waves; changes in rainfall patterns and water availability (via Sierra snowmelt); and increases in wildfires. The changes could translate into major damage in terms of public and environmental health, and Fresno’s economy, e.g., the production of nut and fruit crops. From the social vulnerability analysis conducted, a clear picture of differential social and economic vulnerabilities emerges characterized above all by the enormous dependence of the county’s economy and population on the highly climate-sensitive agricultural sector. These growing issues, while challenging, can be surmounted with timely and adequate planning and preparation. City and county governments, as well as private and civic sector actors, can integrate adaptation into their ongoing efforts to implement already existing plans, such as the Valley Blueprint, Fresno Green and other local and regional measures. Many of these social, economic, institutional, educational, and infrastructure measures can be implemented on regular maintenance, upgrading, planning, and budgeting cycles, and bring benefits to the county’s residents, particularly its disadvantaged groups, its quality of life and environment, its fiscal situation and its economy overall. Thus, developing adaptation plans and implement agreed-upon measures is directly in support of Fresno County achieving its vision of a vibrant, prosperous and sustainable future.

Toward Natural Infrastructure to Manage Shoreline Change in California

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) | August 27th, 2018

Flooding and erosion caused by rising sea levels and powerful storms threaten property throughout coastal California. To protect against these climate-change related thr

Flooding and erosion caused by rising sea levels and powerful storms threaten property throughout coastal California. To protect against these climate-change related threats, landowners will certainly take action, and the default industry standard response has been to try to “hold the line” against the encroaching sea by constructing seawalls, dikes, levees and other forms of coastal armoring. While armoring may in some cases provide acceptable short-term protection, armoring also tends to accelerate shoreline erosion, exacerbating hazards to people and leading to the eventual loss of critical wildlife habitat and public beaches. Natural Shoreline Infrastructure can be as effective as armoring, while having the added benefits of preserving coastal habitat and public access. Recognizing this, California agencies have mandated that decision-makers prioritize its use in planning and investment decisions. Yet, planners have encountered many stumbling blocks as they have tried to incorporate these approaches into coastal resilience plans. Major obstacles include: a lack of a common definition and shared terminology; lack of expertise; lack of precedent; and the absence of siting guidance and technical design standards. Here, we set out to enable planners to adopt Natural Shoreline Infrastructure by filling in the missing information. With the input of dozens of coastal managers who served on our Technical Advisory Committee, we developed a definition and collected a list of case studies where Natural Shoreline Infrastructure has already been successfully deployed in California. Drawing from these and other projects, we collected into one place the first detailed technical guidance for implementation, including siting criteria and design thresholds. These criteria inform decisions about where and when to use six types of Natural Shoreline Infrastructure (e.g. sand dunes, seagrass beds). Using Monterey Bay and Ventura County projects as examples, we demonstrate how to use the technical guidance in tandem with spatial data to match a particular shoreline environment with appropriate Natural Shoreline Infrastructure options, creating “blueprints” for action. The information in this report is intended to facilitate the use of Natural Shoreline Infrastructure along California’s coast, improving the resilience of communities and habitats in the face of climate change.

Tule Subbasin Probationary Hearing Draft Staff Report

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | March 1st, 2024

The State Water Board recognizes that local public agencies in the Tule Subbasin significant efforts since the passage of SGMA to form groundwater sustainability agencies

The State Water Board recognizes that local public agencies in the Tule Subbasin significant efforts since the passage of SGMA to form groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) and then develop detailed technical and other information supporting the adoption and implementation of six groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) for the subbasin. Despite those efforts, in January of 2022, DWR reviewed GSPs to determine if the GSPs met SGMA’s requirements and found it to be incomplete. Following revisions made by the GSAs in the subbasin, DWR reevaluated the GSPs in March of 2023, determined the GSPs to be inadequate, and referred the subbasin to the State Water Board, as required by SGMA. Consistent with SGMA, the State Water Board may now consider whether to designate the Tule Subbasin as a “probationary basin,” a term that is used in SGMA to describe a basin in the first stage of state intervention.

Urban stormwater management in 2050

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) | May 17th, 2009

During the past 40 years, urban stormwater management has evolved from focus on drainage and flood control to inclusion of stormwater quality associated with nonpoint pol

During the past 40 years, urban stormwater management has evolved from focus on drainage and flood control to inclusion of stormwater quality associated with nonpoint pollution. This paper projects what the urban stormwater field could look like in the year 2050. The projections are based on our best judgments as to the internal and external drivers that are expected to change the field during the next 40 years. Relevant projections by other stormwater groups are reviewed. Anticipated changes include the growing interest in stormwater reuse, on-site control of stormwater using a variety of low impact development alternatives, generation and accretion of recalcitrant residuals, toxics and chemicals as well as changing temporal and spatial phenomena of the urban hydrologic cycle due to changes in climate and patterns of urban settlement. Key expected drivers of changing attitudes are the greatly increasing relative cost of providing water and energy; greater concern about developing more sustainable green materials and infrastructure systems; and technological advances that will allow proactive management of urban stormwater systems using real time control and including source controls.

Urban Water Systems—A Conceptual Framework

I.B. Tauris (Bloomsbury) | December 1st, 2014

We will here show how a focus on water/urban relationships can further our knowledge of city developments, and how urban studies can deepen our understanding of the rol

We will here show how a focus on water/urban relationships can further our knowledge of city developments, and how urban studies can deepen our understanding of the role of water in societies. The basic premises for this proposal are two facts of huge importance for understanding the history and development of the city; the universal needs of water and the actual, physical waterscape at a given place. All urban dwellers1—from the first few people who settled around a natural spring in a desert in Jericho and built a wall around it almost 10,000 years ago, to the Incas living in the royal city Machu Picchu on a mountain top in the Andes, to stock traders relaxing in spacious apartments in a skyscraper on Manhattan, and to the party officials assembled for one of their meetings in a grand conference hall in Beijing—share the need for one resource: water. The theoretical and empirical importance of this state of affairs can hardly be overestimated: these people all need water to survive, and as long as they live in cities, it has to be provided in one way or another. Water is the only universal urban resource that in this sense is a must and that can be controlled in this strict understanding of the word.

Valuing Water for Better Governance: How To Promote Dialogue To Balance Social, Environmental, And Economic Values?

Pacific Institute | March 10th, 2007

Solving the freshwater crisis requires significantly more investment and spending in the water sector. But getting more money requires broader agreement among stakehol

Solving the freshwater crisis requires significantly more investment and spending in the water sector. But getting more money requires broader agreement among stakeholders than exists at present. A powerful way of obtaining broader agreement is to clarify through dialogues our values, value differences, and common ground. When this is done, people and businesses are willing to pay more for water systems and their governance, which in turn enables water systems and their managers to deliver more value to people and businesses. Dialogue about values also strengthens the legitimacy and sustainability of formal political decisions; many of which have been reversed or deferred at great cost because underlying value issues were ignored. Dialogue about values is essential to create a “virtuous circle” of progress in the water sector. This paper develops an initial intellectual framework for such dialogue.This paper was sponsored by the Business and Industry CEO Panel for Water and was originally presented at the 3rd World Water Forum, March 2003.

Wastewater Infrastructure: Overview, Funding, and Legislative Developments

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | September 22nd, 2017

The collection and treatment of wastewater remains among the most important public health interventions in human history and has contributed to a significant decrease in

The collection and treatment of wastewater remains among the most important public health interventions in human history and has contributed to a significant decrease in waterborne diseases during the past century. Nevertheless, waste discharges from municipal sewage treatment plants into rivers and streams, lakes, and estuaries and coastal waters remain a significant source of water quality problems throughout the country. The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes performance levels to be attained by municipal sewage treatment plants in order to prevent the discharge of harmful wastes into surface waters. The act also provides financial assistance so that communities can construct treatment facilities and related equipment to comply with the law. Although approximately $95 billion in CWA assistance has been provided since 1972, funding needs for wastewater infrastructure remain high. According to the most recent estimate by the Environmental Protection Agency and the states, the nation’s wastewater treatment facilities will need $271 billion over the next 20 years to meet the CWA’s water quality objectives. Meeting the nation’s wastewater infrastructure needs efficiently and effectively is likely to remain an issue of considerable interest to policymakers. The CWA authorizes the principal federal program to support wastewater treatment plant construction and related eligible activities. Congress established the CWA Title II construction grants program in 1972, significantly enhancing what had previously been a modest grant program. Federal funds were provided through annual appropriations under a state-by-state allocation formula contained in the act. States used their allotments to make grants to cities to build or upgrade categories of wastewater treatment projects including treatment plants, related interceptor sewers, correction of infiltration/inflow of sewer lines, and sewer rehabilitation. In 1987, Congress amended the CWA and created the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund (SRF) program. This program represented a major shift in how the nation finances wastewater treatment needs. In contrast to the Title II construction grants program, which provided grants directly to localities, SRFs are loan programs. States use their SRFs to provide several types of loan assistance to communities, including project construction loans made at or below market interest rates, refinancing of local debt obligations, providing loan guarantees, and purchasing insurance. In 2014, Congress revised the SRF program by providing additional loan subsidies (including forgiveness of principal and negative interest loans) in certain instances. The law identifies a number of types of projects as eligible for SRF assistance, including wastewater treatment plant construction, stormwater treatment and management, energy-efficiency improvements at treatment works, reuse and recycling of wastewater or stormwater, and security improvements at treatment works. In both FY2016 and FY2017, Congress provided $1.394 billion for the clean water SRF program. President Trump’s FY2018 budget proposal requests the same amount as provided for the previous two fiscal years. Although appropriation levels have remained consistent in recent years (in nominal dollars), policymakers have continued to propose changes to the funding program. Issues debated in connection with these proposals include extending SRF assistance to help states and cities meet the estimated funding needs, modifying the program to assist small and economically disadvantaged communities, and enhancing the SRF program to address a number of water quality priorities beyond traditional treatment plant construction—particularly the management of wet weather pollutant runoff from numerous sources, which is the leading cause of stream and lake impairment nationally.

Water & Power Rates Request 2016-2020 Frequently Asked Questions

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) | January 21st, 2016