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 Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Yucaipa Groundwater Subbasin

San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District | January 27th, 2022

The Yucaipa Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), acting as the GSA for the Yucaipa Subbasin (Plan Area, Subbasin), developed this Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GS

The Yucaipa Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), acting as the GSA for the Yucaipa Subbasin (Plan Area, Subbasin), developed this Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in compliance with the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) GSP Regulations. The Yucaipa Subbasin lies within the Upper Santa Ana River Basin Hydrologic Region (DWR Basin Number 8-002.07) and underlies an area of approximately 25,300 acres under portions of the cities of Calimesa, Redlands, and Yucaipa, as well as unincorporated San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. DWR designated the Yucaipa Subbasin a high priority basin based primarily on its reliance on groundwater for water supply. However, this Subbasin is not in a state of critical overdraft. Under SGMA, GSAs “have the responsibility for adopting a Plan that defines the basin setting and establishes criteria that will maintain or achieve sustainable groundwater management.” The requirement of the GSP is to maintain or achieve sustainable groundwater management in the Yucaipa Subbasin by 2042. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Final Mojave Region Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

Mojave Water Agency (MWA) | June 1st, 2014

Final Sensitive Beneficial Use Literature Review (Task 3.1.1)

Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-Salts) | May 16th, 2023

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.

Financing Delta Improvements and Environmental Mitigation

California Research Bureau (CRB) | September 1st, 2008

Resolution of the Delta’s water supply, water quality, and fish problems may involve building various structures, possibly including gates, pumps, canals, levees, and d

Resolution of the Delta’s water supply, water quality, and fish problems may involve building various structures, possibly including gates, pumps, canals, levees, and dams, and undertaking landscaping rearrangements to improve habitat for several species of flora and fauna. Resolution also involves changing water flow regimes in ways that would make more or less water, but probably less, available for human uses. This work and these changes will cost serious money. Cost estimates for many of these actions have not yet been developed. This paper explores approaches to financing these “improvements” and “mitigations.” While a little abstract, this is abstraction that matters. It will determine from whose pockets a good deal of money will come. California has a long history of financing water projects. The first section of this paper reviews this history, in hopes of identifying water-financing principles that might be adapted to Delta improvements and mitigation. Some deep-seated controversies about how Delta improvements should be financed have roots in this history, and it may be helpful to point them out. A core idea in California’s approach to financing water projects is that beneficiaries should pay for them. Decades ago, this was a straightforward proposition – people or water districts should pay for the necessary dams, canals, and pumps and the costs of operating them in proportion to the amount of water they received. In the current age of rising environmental sensitivity, it is a little muddier. An alternative formulation that applies, at least crudely, to housing developments and highway projects, is that project proponents should pay to mitigate at least some of the environmental harm that their project is likely to cause. The second section of this paper explores this controversial subject. It seems unlikely that any consensus can be reached about how to finance facilities in the Delta without reaching some agreement about how to deal with this matter. This paper was first issued in July, 2008. This version contains a few clarifications made in response to the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s reviewers. The author is grateful for their suggestions.

Financing Water Supply and Sanitation in a Changing Climate

Pacific Institute | October 22nd, 2020

Human-caused climate change is real and accelerating, creating new challenges for all aspects of freshwater management. Important gaps in our understanding of these chall

Human-caused climate change is real and accelerating, creating new challenges for all aspects of freshwater management. Important gaps in our understanding of these challenges include both the complications climate change poses for planning, implementing, and sustaining water supply and sanitation (WSS) systems, especially for the poor; and the links between these systems and the emissions of greenhouse gases that worsen the overall climate problem. This paper addresses these gaps. 

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.