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.

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. 

Five-century record of climate and groundwater recharge variability in southern California

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

Modifications to the rates of water flowing from the surface to groundwater (groundwater recharge) due to climate variability are the most difficult to assess because of

Modifications to the rates of water flowing from the surface to groundwater (groundwater recharge) due to climate variability are the most difficult to assess because of the lack of direct long-term observations. Here, we analyze the chloride salt distribution below the surface soil on a plateau near Los Angeles to reconstruct the amount of recharge that occurred in the last five centuries. Over this time interval, periods of major high and low recharge with different duration follow each other and this cyclicity is consistent with long-term atmospheric forcing patterns, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This study determines the range and the natural variability of recharge to groundwater, which sustains local freshwater flow system, and helps forecast future availability of groundwater resource in southern California, where water scarcity is critical to both local and global populations.

Fixing the Delta: How Will We Pay for It?

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | August 4th, 2009

This report examines the question of how to pay for urgently needed investments in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. For years, stakeholders have been at odds over bene

This report examines the question of how to pay for urgently needed investments in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. For years, stakeholders have been at odds over beneficiary financing (charging those who use the water). But recent federal intervention to save endangered fish species and the decline of state and federal funding sources may finally break the impasse. This report situates the beneficiary payment debate in historical, legal, and political context. It also explores how this kind of financing might work for several “big ticket” items: water conveyance facilities, storage reservoirs, environmental mitigation, and levee improvements.

Flood Control System Status Report

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 12th, 2011

This Flood Control System Status Report (FCSSR) describes the current status (physical condition) of SPFC facilities at a systemwide level. DWR prepared the FCSSR to meet

This Flood Control System Status Report (FCSSR) describes the current status (physical condition) of SPFC facilities at a systemwide level. DWR prepared the FCSSR to meet the legislative requirements of California Water Code Section 9120, and to contribute to development of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP). The CVFPP will guide future State investments through projects to address identified problems in the SPFC. The FCSSR is primarily intended to present information on the physical condition of SPFC facilities, and to help guide future inspection, evaluation, reconstruction, and improvement of the facilities. Information contained in the FCSSR should not be used to predict how a levee orassociated facilities may perform in a specific flood event. More detailed information (such as additional geotechnical explorations and analyses at a greater frequency) would be necessary to meet other purposes, such as assessing whether a levee could be certified under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards to provide base flood protection under the National Flood Insurance Program.