Review of the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | December 18th, 2020

Spurred by an ongoing multi-year drought, decreasing system storage, and growing demands for Colorado River Water, in December 2007, Secretary of the Interior (Se

Spurred by an ongoing multi-year drought, decreasing system storage, and growing demands for Colorado River Water, in December 2007, Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) Kempthorne approved the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (Guidelines) (U.S. Department of the Interior [Department], 2007). The Guidelines, which are anticipated to be in place for an interim period through 2026, provide operating criteria for Lake Powell and Lake Mead including provisions designed to provide a greater degree of certainty to water users about timing and volumes of potential water delivery reductions, and additional operating flexibility to conserve and store water in the system. The interim nature of the Guidelines provided the opportunity to gain valuable experience for the management of Lake Powell and Lake Mead under modified operations and improve the basis for making future operational decisions, whether during the interim period or after. The requirement to document this experience is set forth in Section XI.G.7.D. of the ROD: “Beginning no later than December 31, 2020, the Secretary shall initiate a formal review for purposes of evaluating the effectiveness of these Guidelines. The Secretary shall consult with the Basin States in initiating this review” (7.D. Review). In December 2019, Secretary Bernhardt directed the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to begin a review of the Guidelines in early 2020. This Report is the culmination of that process. This Report documents Reclamation’s operational experience and provides a retrospective evaluation of whether operations and actions specified by the Guidelines have adhered to common themes and been effective with respect to the purpose stated in the ROD. The results of this evaluation are not intended to imply correctness of any particular operational provision or recommend future policies or actions. Reclamation anticipates that this Report will be a valuable source of information during upcoming activities in support of post-2026 operations – but expects this Report to be only one of many sources of information that will be available to guide that process and inform upcoming decisions on operations. Reclamation recognizes there are other areas of interest beyond the scope of this Report that should be considered in future discussions. These topics include but are not limited to the impacts to environmental, recreational, hydropower, and water quality resources, how to meaningfully engage perspectives from a diverse group of partners and stakeholders, and other recommendations from tribes, states and other stakeholders. Reclamation anticipates that additional studies and activities will be undertaken and used to inform discussions related to future operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Click here for Final Report, Appendix A – Operational Documentation for Lake Powell and Lake Mead Operations Under the Colorado River 2007 Interim Guidelines Years 2008 to 2019

Review of the Draft 2022-2026 Science Action Agenda

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | January 28th, 2022

Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Delta Conveyance Project

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | December 16th, 2022

Review of the Interagency Ecological Program

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | January 29th, 2018

Review of the Laws Establishing the SWRCB's Permitting Authority over Appropriations of Groundwater Classified as Subterranean Streams and the SWRCB’s Implementation of those Laws

Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository | January 19th, 2002

Introduction 1. A Brief Description of Groundwater: The Law and the Reality 2. Questions Addressed in this Report 3. Responses to the Questions Posed by the Board P

Introduction 1. A Brief Description of Groundwater: The Law and the Reality 2. Questions Addressed in this Report 3. Responses to the Questions Posed by the Board Part I: The Legal Background of the Water Commission Act 1. The Pomeroy Case 2. The Pomeroy Case in its Historical Context 3. Doing the Job Pomeroy Failed to Do: Katz v. Walkinshaw and Los Angeles v. Hunter Part II: The Statutory Response 1. The Water Commission Act of 1913 2. Subsequent Legislative Developments Part III: The Board’s Current Implementation of the Law Governing Subterranean Streams Flowing Through Known and Definite Channels 1. Recent Board Decisions a. Garrapata Creek b. Draft Decision, Pauma and Pala Basins 2. Older Board Decisions a. Sheep Creek, San Bernardino County b. Stony Creek, Colusa County c. Chorro and Morro Creeks, San Luis Obispo County d. Tia Juana River, San Diego County e. Carmel River, Monterey County f. Sacramento River Groundwater Transfer, Yolo County g. San Luis Rey River, San Diego County (Mission and Bonsall Basins) Part IV: Groundwater Law in Other States 1. Arizona 2. Other Western States 3. Nebraska 4. Oregon 5. Colorado Part V: Management of Groundwater Outside Water Code § 1200 1. Overlying Uses of Groundwater 2. Other Sources of Authority Over Use of Groundwater a. Constitution Article X, § 2, Water Code § 100, The Public Trust, and Water Code § 275 b. Remedies for Impairment of Water Rights Part VI: Should the Legal Test Be Changed? Appendices A: Draft of Proposed Water Commission Bill B-1: Assembly Bill No. 642 (1913) (as introduced Jan. 23, 1913). B-2: Assembly Bill No. 642 (1913) (as amended in Senate May 10, 1913) C: Water Commission Act of 1913 D: Transcripts of Hearings on Proposed Water Commission Bill E: Memos from Technical Advisory Committee Members

Review of the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) | November 10th, 2025

The CVP and SWP (referred to collectively as “the Projects”) rarely deliver their full contracted  amount of water. Some of this is inherent in the operation of larg

The CVP and SWP (referred to collectively as “the Projects”) rarely deliver their full contracted  amount of water. Some of this is inherent in the operation of large water projects with diverse demands in a dry and highly variable climate. A growing, complex regulatory environment of state and federal laws, some of which were created to protect fish species endemic to the Delta, has further restricted CVP and SWP operations.  These fish include the southern distinct population segment of North American green sturgeon, California Central Valley steelhead, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, longfin smelt, and Delta smelt. Operating the Projects while trying to prevent species extinction can be a source of conflict if the actions to prevent extinction reduce the amount of water that can be exported. Project operation into the future will likely become more challenging as changes in various climatic factors push the listed species closer to their thresholds of survivability. Hence, in late 2023 USBR contracted with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to form an expert committee that could serve as an independent review for the CVP and SWP as they operate into the future. The Committee’s statement of task appears in Box S-1. The three actions chosen for the study—the Shasta Coldwater Pool Management Action, the Old and Middle River Flow Management Action, and the Summer-Fall Habitat Action for Delta Smelt— are perceived as consequential for species survival and controversial for their effects on water deliveries to contractors.

Review of the Monitoring Enterprise in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | March 3rd, 2022

Review of the Monitoring Enterprise in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Summary Sheet

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | April 28th, 2022

Review of Water Supply Reliability Estimation Related to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | June 16th, 2022

Revised Groundwater Sustainability Plan County of Fresno GSA Management Area A & Management Area B Delta-Mendota Subbasin

County of Fresno | July 20th, 2022

The Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin 5-022.07 in the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118) (Subbasin) is a high priority Subbasin that has been assign

The Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin 5-022.07 in the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118) (Subbasin) is a high priority Subbasin that has been assigned a critical overdraft designation by DWR. The Subbasin consists of 24 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA) who together created six individual GSA groups, each preparing a GSP in a coordinated manner as required by SGMA. The County of Fresno elected to serve as the GSA for County areas within the Subbasin that are not included in other GSAs. The GSP group consists of two individual GSA’s Management Area A (MAA) and Management Area B (MAB) and are collectively referred to as Fresno County Management Areas (FCMA).