City of Barstow, et al v. City of Adelanto, el al (Mojave Basin Area cases)

Superior Court of California, County of Riverside | December 5th, 2002

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins, Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "The Mojave Basin adjudication was initiated by a lawsuit filed

From An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins, Langridge et al, UC Davis (2016): "The Mojave Basin adjudication was initiated by a lawsuit filed May 30, 1990, by the City of Barstow and the Southern California Water Company. The complaint alleged that the cumulative increase in water use in the upper part of the Mojave Basin caused or threatened to cause a reduction in the natural flow of water to the central part of the Mojave Basin. Water users included downstream agriculture (many alfalfa farms), aquaculture, recreational lakes, homeowner associations, and upstream burgeoning municipalities. In the center of the basin is the smaller, low-income town of Barstow, which was concerned about its water supply. A 1993 Stipulated Judgment set forth a proposed physical solution that did not apportion production rights on the basis of preexisting legal water rights, and parties representing over 80 percent of verified water production in the basin agreed to its terms. However, some farmers with overlying rights chose not to stipulate to the judgment. On appeal, the court stated that in considering a stipulated physical solution involving equitable apportionment, the water rights of parties that did not join the stipulation must also be considered. The adjudication set out a complex system to reduce production a producer’s free production allowance (FPA) over time, but withdrawals remain significant in three out of the five subareas. The judgment also contained unique provisions for assuring that the water needs of endangered and other species and their habitat would be protected. One outcome of the adjudication was that many farmers in the western Alto Subarea sold or leased their base annual production (BAP) rights or leased their FPA to municipalities, and population in the Alto Subarea almost doubled. The Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base east of Barstow is a federal Superfund site."

Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | December 2nd, 2008

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act ("CWA" or "the Act") "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." One

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act ("CWA" or "the Act") "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." One of the mechanisms adopted by Congress to achieve that purpose is a prohibition on the discharge of any pollutants, including dredged or fill material, into "navigable waters" except in compliance with other specified sections of the Act. In most cases, this means compliance with a permit issued pursuant to CWA §402 or §404. The Act defines the term "discharge of a pollutant" as "any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source" and provides that "[t]he term `navigable waters' means the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas[,]." In Rapanos, the Supreme Court addressed where the Federal government can apply the Clean Water Act, specifically by determining whether a wetland or tributary is a "water of the United States." The justices issued five separate opinions in Rapanos (one plurality opinion, two concurring opinions, and two dissenting opinions), with no single opinion commanding a majority of the Court. The Rapanos Decision Four justices, in a plurality opinion authored by Justice Scalia, rejected the argument that the term "waters of the United States" is limited to only those waters that are navigable in the traditional sense and their abutting wetlands. However, the plurality concluded that the agencies' regulatory authority should extend only to "relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water" connected to traditional navigable waters, and to "wetlands with a continuous surface connection to" such relatively permanent waters . Justice Kennedy did not join the plurality's opinion but instead authored an opinion concurring in the judgment vacating and remanding the cases to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Justice Kennedy agreed with the plurality that the statutory term "waters of the United States" extends beyond water bodies that are traditionally considered navigable." Justice Kennedy, however, found the plurality's interpretation of the scope of the CWA to be "inconsistent with the Act's text,structure,andpurpose[,]" and he instead presented a different standard for evaluating CWA jurisdiction over wetlands and other waterbodies.' Justice Kennedy concluded that wetlands are"waters of the United States" "if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as `navigable.' When, in contrast, wetlands' effects on water quality are speculative or insubstantial, they fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the statutory term 'navigable waters.' Four justices, in a dissenting opinion authored by Justice Stevens, concluded that EPA's and the Corps' interpretation of "waters of the United States" was a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Water Act. When there is no majority opinion in a Supreme Court case, controlling legal principles may be derived from those principles espoused by five or more justices. Thus, regulatory jurisdiction under the CWA exists over a water body if either the plurality's or Justice Kennedy's standard is satisfied. Since Rapanos, the United States has filed pleadings in a number of cases interpreting the decision in this manner. The agencies are issuing this memorandum in recognition of the fact that EPA regions and Corps districts need guidance to ensure that jurisdictional determinations, permitting actions, and other relevant actions are consistent with the decision and supported by the administrative record. Therefore, the agencies have evaluated the Rapanos opinions to identify those waters that are subject to CWA jurisdiction under the reasoning of a majority of the justices. This approach is appropriate for a guidance document. The agencies will continue to monitor implementation of the Rapanos decision in the field and recognize that further consideration of jurisdictional issues, including clarification and definition of key terminology, may be appropriate in the future, either through issuance of additional guidance or through rulemaking.

Clean Water, Clean Beaches Water Quality Funding Measure*

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) | September 21st, 2012

The Problem: Stormwater and runoff rushes down the street, picking up trash and toxic pollutants. On a rainy day, over 10 billion gallons of contaminated stormw

The Problem: Stormwater and runoff rushes down the street, picking up trash and toxic pollutants. On a rainy day, over 10 billion gallons of contaminated stormwater flows directly — untreated — into rivers, creeks, lakes and our bay and coastal waters. Polluted stormwater and urban runoff include toxins and pathogens that can affect our health, drinking water supplies, and the health of marine life. Contaminants include: Industrial solvents, paints and chemicals; heavy metals like lead, mercury, chromium and arsenic; infection-causing bacteria; pesticides and fertilizers; and trash like plastics, cigarette butts, candy wrappers and syringes. *The proposed solution, a parcel tax to fund stormwater remediation and capture projects, failed before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in 2013.

Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2012

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | December 13th, 2012

Clear Lake Watershed and Lake Remediation

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | December 9th, 2024

The main goal of this joint effort between the University of California Davis, Tahoe Environmental Research Center (UCD-TERC), and the United States Geological Survey (US

The main goal of this joint effort between the University of California Davis, Tahoe Environmental Research Center (UCD-TERC), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS), is to develop the watershed and in-lake monitoring and modeling needed to:  Better understanding of the processes contributing to poor water quality;  Predict watershed and lake responses to changing environmental conditions; and,  Evaluate the impacts and unintended consequences of potential management and restoration activities. 

Clearer Structure, Cleaner Water: Improving Performance and Outcomes at the State Water Boards

Little Hoover Commission | January 1st, 2009

The Little Hoover Commission on Thursday urged the governor and the Legislature to reform the State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control

The Little Hoover Commission on Thursday urged the governor and the Legislature to reform the State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards by expanding the state board to nine members, with five members representing statewide interests and four drawn on a rotating basis from the nine regional board chairpersons, whose positions would become full-time. In addition, the Commission called for a revamped appeals process; to improve the use of data and science in water quality regulatory processes; and urged the water boards to focus on new ways to solve modern water quality problems and set priorities. In its report, Clearer Structure, Cleaner Water: Improving Performance and Outcomes at the State Water Boards, the Commission also recommends refocusing both the state board and regional boards on policy-making and updating basin plans. During its study, the Commission found that the water boards face increasingly complex water quality problems, caused in part by hard-to-regulate sources such as urban and agricultural runoff. The Commission also found that a decentralized governance structure, with nine regional water quality boards operating with distinct policies and processes, hinders accountability and transparency. The result is a system that has lost the confidence of most stakeholders. To restore accountability and increase focus on clean-water outcomes, the Commission recommends strengthening the relationship between the state and regional boards. “The governance structure for water quality regulation in California is 40 years old and is ill-prepared to handle modern problems,” Little Hoover Commission Chairman Daniel Hancock said. “Major reform is needed to help protect and improve water quality, which is a key to the state’s future.”

Clearing the Waters: A Focus on Water Quality Solutions

Pacific Institute | March 22nd, 2010

Every day, 2 million tons of sewage and industrial and agricultural waste are poured into the world’s waters. The result is that more people die from unsafe water annua

Every day, 2 million tons of sewage and industrial and agricultural waste are poured into the world’s waters. The result is that more people die from unsafe water annually than from all forms of violence, including war. A new Pacific Institute report released by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for World Water Day, March 22, 2010, lays out steps and solutions to address our urgent water-quality challenges––and they start with awareness and will to action. “A wide range of human activities affect water quality. The health of our ecosystems––and our communities––depends on how we act now,” said Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP. “Improving and protecting water quality means healthier ecosystems, improved human well-being, and more secure livelihoods, both for ourselves and for future generations.” The new United Nations report, Clearing the Waters: A Focus on Water Quality Solutions, details how water quality is as important as water quantity for satisfying human and environmental needs, yet has received far less investment, scientific support, and public attention. Prepared by the Pacific Institute, one of the world’s leading nonprofit research organizations on freshwater issues, the UNEP report is part of the World Water Day 2010 effort to bring global attention to the need for clean, safe water––and action and policy to address water pollution. “Improving water quality, whether by preventing pollution, treating wastewater before disposal, or restoring the quality of waterways, requires increased awareness and political will,” said Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute. “The consequences of inaction are stark: water-quality problems affect our health, reduce agricultural productivity, impose additional costs on industrial production, and degrade ecosystem services––with costs to local populations and governments.”

Climate Change and Future Water Availability in the United States, Chapter E of U.S. Geological Survey Integrated Water Availability Assessment—2010–20

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | January 15th, 2025

The following are the key points of this chapter:  The steady rise in global temperature as a result of human activity is causing changes in Earth’s water cycle.

The following are the key points of this chapter:  The steady rise in global temperature as a result of human activity is causing changes in Earth’s water cycle. The amount of water stored within and moving between vapor, liquid and frozen components of the water cycle is shifting, with significant consequences for water availability. Climatic drivers underlie regional or local changes in water supply and their socioeconomic impacts. Threats to the quantity and quality of water available for humans and ecosystems in North America include increases in drought, aridification, and fire weather; heavy precipitation and flooding; cryosphere decline; rising surface-water temperatures; and saltwater intrusion in coastal areas. An understanding of how changes in the major climatic drivers impact the water cycle and the accurate simulation of impacts in hydrological models are crucial to predicting future water availability and developing adaptation strategies to ensure human and ecosystem water supplies. Companion chapters: U.S. Geological Survey Integrated Water Availability Assessment—2010–20, Chapter A Water Supply in the Conterminous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, Water Years 2010–20, Chapter B Status of Water-Quality Conditions in the United States, 2010–20, Chapter C  Water Use Across the Conterminous United States, Water Years 2010–20, Chapter D  Integrated Water Availability in the Conterminous United States, 2010–20, Chapter F 

Climate Change and the Delta

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | October 1st, 2016

Climate change amounts to a fast approaching, “new” stressor in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta system. In response to California’s extreme natural hydroclimatic

Climate change amounts to a fast approaching, “new” stressor in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta system. In response to California’s extreme natural hydroclimatic variability, complex water-management systems have been developed, even as the Delta’s natural ecosystems have been largely devastated. Climate change is projected to challenge these management and ecological systems in different ways that are characterized by different levels of uncertainty. Future precipitation changes are less certain, with as many climate models projecting wetter conditions as drier. Warmer temperatures will likely enhance evaporation and raise water temperatures. Consequently, climate change is projected to yield both more extreme flood risks and greater drought risks. Effects on the Delta ecosystem that are traceable to warming include sea level rise, reduced snowpack, earlier snowmelt and larger storm-driven streamflow, warmer and longer summers, warmer summer water temperatures, and water-quality changes. These changes and their uncertainties will challenge the operations of water projects and uses throughout the Delta’s watershed and delivery areas. Although the effects of climate change on Delta ecosystems may be profound, the end results are difficult to predict, except that native species will fare worse than invaders. Successful preparation for the coming changes will require greater integration of monitoring, modeling, and decision-making across time, variables, and space than has been historically normal.

Climate Change and the Delta: A Synthesis (Public Review Draft)

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | March 23rd, 2018

The Delta Reform Act of 2009 (Water Code Section 85066) requires that the Delta Stewardship Council adopt a Delta Plan (the Plan) to achieve the coequal goals of providin

The Delta Reform Act of 2009 (Water Code Section 85066) requires that the Delta Stewardship Council adopt a Delta Plan (the Plan) to achieve the coequal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem (Water Code Section 85000). In the time since the Plan was adopted in 2013, a significant shift in State planning for Delta ecosystem protection, restoration, and enhancement has occurred, prompting review of the Delta Plan to  examine whether its strategies are still suited to achieve the ecological goals of the Delta Reform Act. As such, the Delta Stewardship Council (Council) is developing an amendment of the Plan’s Chapter 4, Protect, Restore, and Enhance the Delta Ecosystem. Council staff are reviewing the best-available science to inform amendment of Chapter 4 of the Delta Plan. To support this effort, Council staff have developed three science  synthesis papers. This paper focuses on the effects of climate change in the Delta and is accompanied by two other papers focused on the Delta ecosystem (terrestrial and  aquatic resources) and restoration. Climate change is of interest for the Chapter 4  amendment given recent rapid advancements in research on climate change and its  effects on the Delta ecosystem that have occurred since the Delta Plan was adopted in  2013 (Dettinger et al. 2016). Climate change has the potential to significantly affect the Delta ecosystem by raising  air and water temperatures, changing the timing and volume of flows into and through  the Delta, increasing tidal inundation with sea-level rise (SLR), and increasing salinity  intrusion into the Delta. Climate change is recognized as a global stressor in Chapter 4 of the 2013 Delta Plan, but the effects of climate change on Delta ecosystems are  discussed only briefly and with limited consideration of management strategies that address the issue. Chapter 4 of the Delta Plan identifies five key stressors to the Delta  ecosystem and core strategies for addressing each. Climate change has interrelated  effects on all five core strategy areas: Delta flows, habitat, water quality, non-native 28 species, and hatcheries and harvest management. The Delta Reform Act specifies consideration of “the future impact of climate change and sea-level rise” (Water Code Section 85066), and identifies a restoration timeline horizon of 2100 (Water Code Section 85302). More generally, Executive Order B-30-15, signed by Governor Brown in April 2015, requires that State agencies incorporate climate change into planning and investment decisions, and that they prioritize natural infrastructure and actions for climate preparedness.