Integrating Water and Land Management: A Suburban Case Study and Locally Adaptable Tool

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | October 15th, 2013

Managing the impacts of development on water resources is an urgent challenge in California. To support more efficient growth with fewer environmental impacts, the Califo

Managing the impacts of development on water resources is an urgent challenge in California. To support more efficient growth with fewer environmental impacts, the California Legislature and governor have adopted policies to better integrate land use and resource management. The Land Use Planning and Management Resource Management Strategy (RMS) located within California’s 2009 Water Plan Update calls for Low Impact Development (LID) and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) development approaches to reduce land use impacts on water resources. These strategies are suggested to decrease indoor/outdoor or residential water consumption, improve the quality of stormwater runoff, decrease the quantity and flow rates of stormwater runoff, and protect downstream riparian habitat. The 2009 RMS set in motion a study to quantify costs and benefits associated with water-smart land use practices. Following this 2009 initiative, the charter for the RMS in the 2013 California Water Plan Update proposed a land use decision tool and demonstration of its application through pilot projects. For the first time since 1957, the Water Plan will also include a land use objective linked to corresponding actions. Consistent with this approach, the California Department of Water Resources partnered with Sonoma State University’s (SSU) Center for Sustainable Communities and conducted four case studies of suburban development in Sonoma County. An “Integrated Water and Land Management Tool” was also designed and built as part of this project. This tool may be downloaded free of charge at the website for the California Water Plan Update 2013. < http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/cwpu2013/index.cfm > Then navigate to Volume 4. Although existing tools are available to guide practitioners, those that are easy to use generally could not be modified to reflect local conditions. And calculators that could be modified possessed challenging user interfaces that required extensive background knowledge. Thus, the project team determined that a user-friendly calculator with the ability to customize and save local data would be a valuable asset. The case studies were then compared and contrasted using the new tool. This allowed users to specify different residential land cover and infrastructure choices and compare development outcomes, especially at the lot and neighborhood levels. Guiding principles for the study and creation of the tool were to: • Create an open, locally modifiable, and user-friendly tool to help guide land use and land cover decisions • Quantify relationships between land use alternatives and key water management benefits relating to water supply reliability, flood management, water quality, habitat value, and greenhouse gas emissions • Quantify the monetary costs of implementing LID and traditional development strategies, including long-term costs • Compare and contrast outputs from different development approaches, as exemplified in four case study sites This report, “Integrating Water and Land Management: A Suburban Case Study and Locally Adaptable Tool”, proceeds in two major parts: developing the tool, and then applying the tool to four residential developments in Sonoma County, California, as a proof of concept. While preliminary conclusions are made from the analysis of the case studies, the primary contribution of this research effort is a new, open-source Integrated Water and Land Management Tool, which will further grow and develop over time as additional case studies and applications are completed.

Investigating the Role of Snow Water Equivalent on Streamflow Predictability during Drought

American Meteorological Society (AMS) | October 20th, 2022

Snowpack provides the majority of predictive information for water supply forecasts (WSFs) in snow-dominated basins across the western United States. Drought conditions t

Snowpack provides the majority of predictive information for water supply forecasts (WSFs) in snow-dominated basins across the western United States. Drought conditions typically accompany decreased snowpack and lowered runoff efficiency, negatively impacting WSFs. Here, we investigate the relationship between snow water equivalent (SWE) and April–July streamflow volume (AMJJ-V) during drought in small headwater catchments, using observations from 31 USGS streamflow gauges and 54 SNOTEL stations. A linear regression approach is used to evaluate forecast skill under different historical climatologies used for model fitting, as well as with different forecast dates. Experiments are constructed in which extreme hydrological drought years are withheld from model training, that is, years with AMJJ-V below the 15th percentile. Subsets of the remaining years are used for model fitting to understand how the climatology of different training subsets impacts forecasts of extreme drought years. We generally report overprediction in drought years. However, training the forecast model on drier years, that is, below-median years (P15, P57.5], minimizes residuals by an average of 10%in drought year forecasts, relative to a baseline case, with the highest median skill obtained in mid- to late April for colder regions. We report similar findings using a modified National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) procedure in nine large Upper Colorado River basin (UCRB) basins, highlighting the importance of the snowpack–streamflow relationship in streamflow predictability. We propose an “adaptive sampling” approach of dynamically selecting training years based on antecedent SWE conditions, showing error reductions of up to 20% in historical drought years relative to the period of record. These alternate training protocols provide opportunities for addressing the challenges of future drought risk to water supply planning.

Irrigation Water Use in the Central Valley of California

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 1st, 1985

It’s Time for States to Invest in Infrastructure

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | August 10th, 2017

State investment in transportation, public buildings, water treatment systems, and other forms of vital infrastructure is key to creating good jobs and promoting

State investment in transportation, public buildings, water treatment systems, and other forms of vital infrastructure is key to creating good jobs and promoting full economic recovery. States should reject the flawed economic growth strategy of cutting taxes and offering corporate giveaways, and instead identify and make investments in infrastructure that provide the foundation for a strong economy. It’s a good time for states to make those investments.

Kern County Subbasin Probationary Hearing Final Staff Report

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | January 21st, 2025

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board or Board) staff developed the Probationary Hearing Final Staff Report (Final Staff Report) for the Kern County

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board or Board) staff developed the Probationary Hearing Final Staff Report (Final Staff Report) for the Kern County Subbasin (subbasin) to help inform the Board’s decision pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA or Act) as to whether to designate the Kern County Subbasin a probationary basin, as defined in the Act.   Companion information and documents: Kern County Subbasin State Water Resources Control Board Update Page Final Staff Report: Executive Summary Appendix A: Summary Table of Proposed Deficiencies and Potential Actions Appendix C: Public Process, Tribal Consultation, and Engagement; Draft Staff Report Comments Appendix D: State Water Board Review of the 2020 Groundwater Sustainability Plans and DWR Incomplete Determination

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 (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.

Land Transitions and Dust in the San Joaquin Valley

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | July 24th, 2022

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires groundwater users to bring their basins into balance over the next two decades. In the San Joaquin Valley, this

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires groundwater users to bring their basins into balance over the next two decades. In the San Joaquin Valley, this will mean taking more than 500,000 acres of agricultural land out of intensive irrigated production. Among other issues, this could potentially lead to air quality impacts if the lands become new sources of dust, especially windblown dust, which can have numerous negative short- and long-term health and environmental impacts. In addition, the changing climate may exacerbate risks as warmer temperatures can dry out soils and increase dust emissions. The overall air quality impact of transitioning agricultural land to new uses is nuanced, but proactive management can help to identify high-risk areas and at-risk communities, and direct effort and funding to the most cost-effective interventions.

Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta

Delta Protection Commission (DPC) | February 25th, 2010

The Delta Protection Act of 1992 (Act) established the Delta Protection Commission, a State entity to plan for and guide the conservation and enhancement of the natural r

The Delta Protection Act of 1992 (Act) established the Delta Protection Commission, a State entity to plan for and guide the conservation and enhancement of the natural resources of the Delta, while sustaining agriculture and meeting increased recreational demand. The Act defines a Primary Zone, which comprises the principal jurisdiction of the Delta Protection Commission. The Secondary Zone is the area outside the Primary Zone and within the “Legal Delta”; the Secondary Zone is not within the planning area of the Delta Protection Commission. The Act requires the Commission to prepare and adopt a Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta, which must meet specific goals. This document constitutes the Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta (Plan), as updated in 2010. The Act (Public Resources Code Section 29760 et. seq.) requires the Commission to prepare and adopt and thereafter review and maintain a comprehensive long-term Resource Management Plan for land uses within the Primary Zone of the Delta (“Resource Management Plan”). The Resource Management Plan is to set forth a description of the needs and goals for the Delta and a statement of the policies, standards, and elements of the Resource Management Plan. Within 180 days of the adoption of the Resource Management Plan or any amendments by the Commission, all local governments, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 29725, shall submit to the Commission proposed amendments to their general plans. The amendments shall cause the general plans to be consistent with the criteria in Public Resources Code Section 29763.5 with respect to land located within the Primary Zone. Those criteria include a requirement that the general plan be consistent with the Resource Management Plan (Plan).