Federal Investments for the California Bay-Delta Region

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) | February 5th, 2014

The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta) region of California is an ecosystem of national significance. It is also the hub of the nation’s largest

The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta) region of California is an ecosystem of national significance. It is also the hub of the nation’s largest water delivery system—infrastructure that is the foundation for economic activity in the agricultural, industrial, and recreational sectors of the economy, and provides drinking water to a population of over 25 million Californians. This document is intended to provide an overview of the federal land and water programs in and around the Bay-Delta region, their purpose, options for future programs or actions, and an overview of the actions in which agencies are engaged already. Successful long term management of water resources and the environment to achieve the co-equal goals of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and overall Delta sustainability requires continued improvement in managing California’s finite water supply. Contents I. Introduction II. Bay Delta-Big Picture: A Holistic Approach • State and Federal Integrated Water Management • Reducing Water Demand • Increasing Water Reliability and Supply • Improve Operational Efficiency and Transfers/Exchanges • Potential Federal Water and Ecosystem Management Actions III. Role of the Federal agencies • Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Environmental Protection Agency • Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Army Corps of Engineers • Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service U.S. Forest Service Rural Development Farm Services Agency Agriculture Research Service IV. Conclusion

Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | February 9th, 2009

The federal government owns about 650 million acres (29%) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four agencies administer 617.5 million acres of the fede

The federal government owns about 650 million acres (29%) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four agencies administer 617.5 million acres of the federal land: the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, all in the Department of the Interior.  Most of these lands are in the West, including Alaska. They generate revenues for the U.S. Treasury, some of which are shared with states and localities. The agencies receive funding through the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws, as well as in various trust funds and special accounts. The lands administered by the four agencies are managed for a variety of purposes, primarily related to preservation, recreation, and development of natural resources. Yet each of these agencies has distinct responsibilities for the lands and resources it administers. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 255.8 million acres and is responsible for 700 million acres of subsurface mineral resources. The BLM has a multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate that supports a variety of uses and programs, including energy development, recreation, grazing and wild horses and burros, and conservation. The Forest Service (FS) manages 192.8 million acres also for multiple uses and sustained yields of various products and services, including timber harvesting, recreation, grazing, watershed protection, and fish and wildlife habitats. Most of the lands are designated national forests, but there are national grasslands and other designations. Wildfire protection is an increasingly important activity for both agencies. The BLM and FS have several authorities to acquire and dispose of lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages 90.8 million acres of federal land, primarily to conserve and protect animals and plants. The National Wildlife Refuge System includes wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas, and wildlife coordination units. Units can be created by an act of Congress or executive order, and the FWS also may acquire lands for migratory birds. The National Park Service (NPS) manages 78.1 million acres of federal land to conserve lands and resources and make them available for public use. Activities that harvest or remove resources generally are prohibited. The National Park System has diverse units ranging from historical structures to cultural and natural areas. Units are created by an act of Congress, but the President may proclaim national monuments. There also are three special management systems that include lands from more than one agency. The National Wilderness Preservation System consists of 107.6 million acres of protected wilderness areas designated by Congress. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System contains 11,944 miles of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers, primarily designated by Congress and managed to preserve their free-flowing condition. The National Trails System contains four classes of trails managed to provide recreation and access to outdoor areas and historic resources.

Final Groundwater Assessment Study: A Status Report on the Use of Groundwater in the Service Area of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) | September 3rd, 2007

Final land management plan for the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | June 9th, 2008

The Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area (Wildlife Area) comprises approximately 16,770 acres of managed wildlife habitat and agricultural land within the Yolo Bypass (Bypass). The

The Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area (Wildlife Area) comprises approximately 16,770 acres of managed wildlife habitat and agricultural land within the Yolo Bypass (Bypass). The Bypass conveys seasonal high flows from the Sacramento River to help control river stage and protect the cities of Sacramento, West Sacramento, and Davis and other local communities, farms, and lands from flooding. Substantial environmental, social and economic benefits are provided by the Yolo Bypass, benefiting the people of the State of California. The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), as part of the Resources Agency of the State of California, has the following mission to guide its planning and operations: “The mission of the Department of Fish and Game is to manage California’s diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public.” The stated purpose of the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area Land Management Plan (LMP) is to: guide management of habitats, species, appropriate public uses, and programs to achieve DFG’s mission; direct an ecosystem approach to managing the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area in coordination with the objectives of the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP); identify and guide appropriate, compatible public-use opportunities within the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area; direct the management of the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area in a manner that promotes cooperative relationships with adjoining private-property owners; establish a descriptive inventory of the sites and the wildlife and plant resources that occur in the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area; provide an overview of the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area’s operation, maintenance, and personnel requirements to implement management goals, and serve as a planning aid for preparation of the annual budget for the Bay-Delta Region (Region 3); and present the environmental documentation necessary for compliance with state and federal statutes and regulations, provide a description of potential and actual environmental impacts that may occur during plan management, and identify mitigation measures to avoid or lessen these impacts. This LMP was prepared through a partnership between DFG and the Yolo Basin Foundation (Foundation) and with the benefit of an extensive public-input program. DFG provided overall guidance to the planning process and was responsible for all decisions regarding the content of the LMP. The Foundation was responsible for coordinating substantial stakeholder outreach and facilitating stakeholder input in the LMP development. The Foundation was instrumental in the development of environmental education and interpretation programs at the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area and helped facilitate the documentation of these programs in this plan. The public-outreach program featured six focus group meetings conducted before initiation of LMP development (2002); a total of 37 Yolo Bypass Working Group Meetings (1999 to 2006; updates on developments at the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area have been a frequent topic of discussion); one advertised public meeting for initial input (December 12, 2005, in Davis, attended by 30 persons); five additional focus group meetings to receive input on the Preliminary Draft LMP (March and April, 2006), one advertised public meeting for input on the Draft LMP and Initial Study. Appendix A provides a summary of the comments received at the public meetings and examples of the various communication devices that were used to publicize the planning process.

Final Urban Water Management Plan Goleta Water District

Goleta Water District (GWD) | December 20th, 2005

Financial Statement Analysis of CVP Contractors

Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force (Delta Vision) | July 20th, 2008

This report provides an analysis of the condensed financial statements of the 10 largest Central Valley Project (CVP) irrigation contractors in the San Joaquin Valley (Va

This report provides an analysis of the condensed financial statements of the 10 largest Central Valley Project (CVP) irrigation contractors in the San Joaquin Valley (Valley). The 10 were selected because of their size measured by CVP water deliveries, relative to both aggregate CVP deliveries in the Valley and for all of California. The report includes, for those contractors, a summary of those financial statements for eight years, respective net capital repayment obligations, and acre-feet (AF) of water delivered. This is the third of several written reports which ENTRIX will complete relative to CVP Financing and Repayment Issues. Subsequent reports will include an analysis and discussion of the generation and distribution of hydroelectric power from CVP facilities and a comprehensive document summarizing revised forms of all reports submitted.

First Supplement to Bulletin No. 11, San Joaquin County Investigation, Basic Data, Calaveras and Littlejohns Units, 1953-1955

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | June 30th, 1955

Fish & Wildlife Groundwater Planning Considerations

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | June 6th, 2019

In 2014, California passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (AB1739, SB 1168, SB 1319), authorizing local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to d

In 2014, California passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (AB1739, SB 1168, SB 1319), authorizing local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) for a subset of California’s alluvial aquifers. To comply with SGMA, GSAs must achieve sustainable groundwater management, defined by SGMA as the avoidance of locally-defined undesirable results. To achieve sustainability, GSAs must develop and implement effective groundwater management plans that consider the interests of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater, including environmental users of groundwater. [Water Code § 10723.2.] In many groundwater basins, fish and wildlife that rely on groundwater are among these beneficial uses and users. Many sensitive species and habitats comprise groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs), which are natural communities that rely on groundwater to sustain all or a portion of their water needs. The unsustainable use of groundwater can impact the shallow aquifers and interconnected surface waters on which GDEs depend and may lead to adverse impacts on fish and wildlife. As trustee for California’s fish and wildlife resources, CDFW intends to engage as a stakeholder in groundwater planning processes (where resources are available) to represent the groundwater needs of GDEs and fish and wildlife beneficial uses and users of groundwater. The information provided here is intended to help local groundwater planners, groundwater planning proponents and consultants, and CDFW staff work together to consider the needs of fish and wildlife when developing groundwater management plans and implementing SGMA. The document includes three categories of groundwater planning considerations: Scientific Considerations Management Considerations; and Legal, Regulatory, and Policy Considerations. Links to additional guidance and considerations developed by CDFW and other organizations that address the impacts of groundwater pumping on GDEs and depletion of interconnected surface water can be found at the end of this document. Except to the extent that this document directly references existing statutory or regulatory requirements, use of these groundwater planning considerations is not mandated under law and should not be interpreted as a rule, regulation, order, or standard for local groundwater plans. Practical application of these considerations must be based on the best available information and groundwater basin-specific conditions.

Fish & Wildlife Groundwater Planning Considerations: Freshwater Wetlands

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | June 6th, 2019

 In 2014, California passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (AB1739, SB 1168, SB 1319), authorizing local groundwater sustainability agencies to develo

 In 2014, California passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (AB1739, SB 1168, SB 1319), authorizing local groundwater sustainability agencies to develop groundwater sustainably plans for a subset of California’s alluvial aquifers. This document provides considerations to assist local groundwater sustainability agencies in avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to freshwater wetland beneficial uses and users of groundwater in local groundwater management planning and implementation. The information provided is intended to help local groundwater planners, groundwater planning proponents and consultants, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) staff work together to protect wetlands as a public trust resource. 

Flexibility and intensity of global water use

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | June 3rd, 2019

Water stress is often evaluated by scarcity: the share of available water supply being consumed by humans. However, some consumptive uses of water are more or less flexib

Water stress is often evaluated by scarcity: the share of available water supply being consumed by humans. However, some consumptive uses of water are more or less flexible than others, depending on the costs or effects associated with their curtailment. Here, we estimate the share of global water consumption over the period 1980–2016 from the relatively inflexible demands of irrigating perennial crops, cooling thermal power plants, storing water in reservoirs and supplying basic water for humans and livestock. We then construct a water stress index that integrates the share of runoff being consumed (scarcity), the share of consumption in these inflexible categories (flexibility) and the historical variability of runoff weighted by storage capacity (variability), and use our index to evaluate the trends in water stress of global major river basins on six continents. We find that the 10% most stressed basins encompass ~19%, 19% and 35% of global population, thermal electricity generation and irrigated calorie production, respectively, and some of these basins also experience the largest increases in our identified stress indexes over the study period. Water consumption intensities (water used per unit of goods or service produced) vary by orders of magnitude across and within continents, with highly stressed basins in some cases characterized by high water consumption intensities. Our results thus point to targeted water mitigation opportunities (for example, relocating crops and switching cooling technologies) for highly stressed basins.