Key Issues in Seawater Desalination in California: Marine Impacts

Pacific Institute | December 11th, 2013

Desalination, like other major industrial processes, has environmental impacts that must be understood and mitigated. A new report from the Pacific Institute examines e

Desalination, like other major industrial processes, has environmental impacts that must be understood and mitigated. A new report from the Pacific Institute examines effects on the marine environment associated with the construction and long-term operation of seawater desalination plants, including withdrawing water from the ocean and discharging the highly concentrated brine. “If and when we build plants in California, we must ensure that the plants are built to the highest standards given what we know now,” said Cooley. “Additionally, monitoring of existing and proposed desalination plants is crucial to improving our understanding of the sensitivity of the marine environment and helping promote more effective operation and design to minimize ecological and biological impacts in the future.” Modern reverse-osmosis desalination plants, such as those planned or proposed on the California coast, take in large volumes of seawater – generally two gallons are withdrawn for every gallon of freshwater produced – and pass it through fine-pored membranes to separate freshwater from salt. The highly concentrated brine is then typically disposed of back into the ocean. With the majority of desalination plants extracting water directly through open water intakes in the ocean, there is a direct impact on marine life. Fish and other marine organisms are killed on the intake screens (impingement); organisms small enough to pass through, such as plankton, fish eggs, and larvae, are killed during processing of the salt water (entrainment). The impacts on the marine environment, even for a single desalination plant, may be subject to daily, seasonal, annual, and even decadal variation, and are likely to be species- and site-specific.

Kings County Farm Bureau vs. California State Water Resources Control Board

Superior Court of California, County of Kings | September 12th, 2024

Kings River East GSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KREGSA) | December 13th, 2019

Kings River East GSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Revised)

Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KREGSA) | July 5th, 2022

Klamath Basin Settlement Agreements

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | October 21st, 2015

The Klamath River Basin on the California-Oregon border is a focal point for local and national discussions on water allocation and species protection. Previously, water

The Klamath River Basin on the California-Oregon border is a focal point for local and national discussions on water allocation and species protection. Previously, water and species management issues have exacerbated competition and generated conflict among several interests—farmers; Indian tribes; commercial and sport fishermen; federal water project and wildlife refuge managers; environmental groups; hydropower facility operators; and state, local, and tribal governments. Drought conditions and a call for water by senior water rights holders in 2013 have again brought these issues to the forefront. In 2010, the Secretary of the Interior and the governors of Oregon and California, along with multiple interest groups, announced the results of a multiyear negotiation process to resolve long-standing issues in the basin: two interrelated agreements, supported by the federal government and signed by the two states and numerous other parties. These agreements, known as the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), together aim to provide for water deliveries to irrigators and wildlife refuges, fish habitat restoration, and numerous other related actions. Generally, the KBRA provides for actions intended to restore Klamath fisheries and for assurances for water deliveries to wildlife refuges and federal project irrigators under certain circumstances, among other things. The KHSA lays out a process that could lead to the removal of four privately owned dams on the Klamath River. This dam removal would be one of the largest and most complex projects of its kind ever undertaken. Some parts of the Klamath agreements are being carried out under existing authorities. Studies to inform a determination on dam removal under the KHSA by the Secretary of the Interior are complete, and some restoration actions have been initiated. However, congressional authorization is required for the most significant components of the agreements to be implemented. The KBRA and KHSA did not address all outstanding issues in the basin. A water rights adjudication by the state of Oregon (in progress since the 1970s) is ongoing. In 2013, the adjudication reaffirmed “time immemorial” tribal water rights in the upper part of the Klamath Basin, confirming that tribal water rights are senior to those of other water rights holders. This resulted in a “call” on water rights (i.e., notice by senior water rights holders that their demands exceed available flows), and led to reductions to water supplies for some junior users during the low water year of 2013. To resolve these issues and prevent such a scenario from occurring again, a separate settlement agreement (the Upper Klamath Basin Settlement Agreement) was negotiated by stakeholders and finalized in April 2014. To be implemented, the agreement would need to be authorized along with the KBRA and KHSA. The KBRA and KHSA were originally set to expire in 2012 if no authorizing legislation was enacted, but they have since been extended (most recently through 2015). Parties may also withdraw individually from the agreements, and several parties initiated this process of withdrawal. In the 114th Congress, S. 133 would authorize the Klamath agreements, including a suite of new federal actions that have received support from disparate parties and are required for the agreements to be implemented. Previous legislation in the 113th Congress (S. 2379) was ordered to be reported out of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on November 13, 2014.

Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use Conflicts

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | June 13th, 2002

Severe drought in 2001 affected the Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, exacerbating competition for scarce water resources and generating confl

Severe drought in 2001 affected the Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, exacerbating competition for scarce water resources and generating conflict among several interests – farmers, municipal and industrial users, commercial and sport fishermen, other recreationists, federal wildlife refuges, environmental groups, and Indian Tribes. The conflicts over water distribution and allocation are physically and legally complex, reflecting the varied and sometimes competing uses of limited water supplies in the Upper Basin. On April 6, 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), which has supplied water to farms in the Upper Basin for nearly 100 years, announced that “no water [would] be available” for farms normally receiving water from the Upper Klamath Lake, so that scarce water could be used to protect species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Water was available to some farmers from other sources (e.g., wells and other Bureau sources); however, many farmers were not able to plant or harvest crops due to severe cutbacks in water supplies. Emotions ran high on all sides of the issues, and the water control gates were unlawfully opened by protesters. Although the Basin has received significantly more precipitation in 2002, many issues remain in dispute. In addition, several judicial decisions have affected the issues with respect to the listed species as well as tribal rights. On May 31, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service both issued Final Biological Opinions on the Bureau’s 10-year Operation Plan for the Klamath Project. The agencies found that the Bureau’s proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the two listed suckers and coho salmon, as well as result in the adverse modification of proposed critical habitat; however, both Opinions also included “reasonable and prudent alternatives” for operating the Project that would remove the jeopardizing effects of the proposed action. However, on June 3, 2002, the Bureau formally rejected both Final Biological Opinions, but opted instead to operate under a one-year plan that it asserts complies with the Opinions. Independently, in March 2002, the President appointed a high-level working group to develop solutions. Congress has responded to the controversy in a number of ways, including holding several oversight hearings and appropriating funds for water conservation activities in the area. This report provides background on the geographic, historic, and legal underpinnings of the current conflicts. Because the report focuses on the current conflicts, it deals primarily with Klamath Project operations in the Upper Klamath Basin and effects associated with water releases from Upper Klamath Lake.

Klamath/San Joaquin/Sacramento Hydroclimatic Reconstructions from Tree Rings

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | February 7th, 2014

This is a draft final report for Agreement Number 4600008850, “Klamath/San Joaquin/Sacramento Hydroclimatic Reconstructions”, signed October 13, 2010.  Work includes

This is a draft final report for Agreement Number 4600008850, “Klamath/San Joaquin/Sacramento Hydroclimatic Reconstructions”, signed October 13, 2010.  Work includes developing new and updated tree-ring chronologies, reconstructing specified streamflow and/or precipitation records in the Klamath, San Joaquin and Sacramento River Basins, and analyzing the time series properties of the reconstructions. These reconstructions allow assessment of hydrologic variability over centuries to millennia and give context for assessing recent drought events. Tasks on this project included field collections; laboratory work in sample preparation, dating and measurement; and statistical work in chronology development, reconstruction, and analysis of those reconstructions. The interpretation of the reconstructions includes five main components : 1) place instrumental-period flow statistics in a long-term context, 2) quantify droughts and wet periods, 3) identify cycles in wetness and dryness, 4) check consistency with other paleoclimatic data, and 5) assess reconstructed flow variations in the context of expected scenarios of climate. A total of 16 different hydroclimatic series – 11 flow records and 5 precipitation records, were reconstructed. This report summarizes the research project products and results. The Data and Methods section of this report describes the field collections and development of tree-ring chronologies, reconstruction modeling, and methods of analyzing reconstructions. The Results section focuses on the interpretation of selected key reconstructions for the Klamath, Sacramento, and San Joaquin basins. Annual time series of the 16 reconstructions are included as products in an appendix and in a digital spreadsheet.

LA Sustainable Water Project: Los Angeles City-Wide Overview

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) | February 1st, 2018

This report assesses the potential to improve water quality standards while integrating complementary One Water Management practices that can increase potential local wat

This report assesses the potential to improve water quality standards while integrating complementary One Water Management practices that can increase potential local water supplies for the City of Los Angeles (the City).  This final report summarizes the current practices and future opportunities at the City-owned Water Reclamation Plants and underlying groundwater basins and highlights the importance of considering all aspects of integrated water management even when dealing with water quality or supply-focused projects. Implementing watershed-scale best management practice programs to meet stormwater permit requirements will significantly improve water quality in all watersheds.  However, additional mechanisms such as increasing Low Impact Development implementation and comprehensive source tracking and source control mechanisms will be required to potentially eliminate water quality exceedances.  There are multiple efforts occurring in the City and the region to increase the recharge of recycled water into the ground and the volumes of remediated groundwater extracted. This research further assessed the impacts of potential water supply portfolios, with greater volumes of locally-supplied water, on GHG emissions and energy needs of supplying LA’s water.  Conservation will be another powerful tool to decrease our dependence on imported water.  This research demonstrates the complex interrelationships between all aspects of urban water management, including, for example, stormwater management and local water supply.

LA Sustainable Water Project: Los Angeles River Watershed

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) | September 1st, 2017

The LA Sustainable Water Project: Los Angeles River Watershed report explores the potential to improve water quality standards while integrating complementary One Water M

The LA Sustainable Water Project: Los Angeles River Watershed report explores the potential to improve water quality standards while integrating complementary One Water Management practices that can increase potential local water supplies for the City of Los Angeles (the City) in the highly urbanized Los Angeles River (LAR) watershed.To assess the integrated water landscape in this watershed, the report also looks at current practices and future opportunities at the Donald C Tillman, LA Glendale, and Burbank Water Reclamation Plants (WRPs) and in the underlying Upper LA River Area (ULARA) adjudicated groundwater basins. Implementing watershed-scale best management practice programs to meet stormwater permit requirements will significantly improve water quality. However, additional mechanisms such as increasing Low Impact Development implementation and comprehensive source tracking and source control mechanisms will be required to potentially eliminate water quality exceedances. The 3 WRPs in the watershed currently discharge more than 30 million gallons per day of treated wastewater into the River; an increased focus on increasing local water supply could lead to a reduction in these discharges. The combination of increased stormwater capture and increased use of recycled water in the LAR watershed could lead to lower flows in the LAR and impact habitat and recreational uses; further study is needed to characterize potential impacts and identify optimal flows for the future of the LAR. The City is leading efforts in ULARA to increase the recharge of recycled water into theground by 30,000 acre feet per year and increase the volumes of remediated groundwater extracted by around 120,000 acre feet per year. This research demonstrates the complex interrelationships between all aspects of urban water management, including stormwater management and local water supply.

LADWP Stormwater Capture Master Plan

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) | October 5th, 2015

To ensure a safe and reliable water supply for future generations of Angelenos, one of the City’s key strategies is to increase the local water supply and decrease the

To ensure a safe and reliable water supply for future generations of Angelenos, one of the City’s key strategies is to increase the local water supply and decrease the need to purchase imported water. However, in large part due to urbanization, the majority of precipitation that falls onto the City flows into storm drains and out to the ocean. In light of these conditions, stormwater is an increasingly viable supply. Capturing and using stormwater on-site can offset potable water demand. Capturing and infiltrating stormwater into subsurface groundwater aquifers increases local groundwater reserves. Both infiltration and capture for direct use enhance the reliability of the City’s water supply. Projects to capture and conserve stormwater runoff comprise an important component of the City’s water supply portfolio. The City is a part of a complex multi-jurisdictional region. As such, implementing effective and comprehensive local stormwater capture projects involves a collaborative effort between several agencies including LADWP, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation (LASAN), the Los Angeles Bureau of Street Services (LABSS), the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (LABOE), and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Additionally, LADWP partners with many community-based organizations to leverage their relationships with the residents of the City. Working together on projects that have multi-benefits for multiple agencies allows for the opportunity to cost-share and reduces the financial burden.