Water systems in California: Ownership, geography, and affordability

Utilities Policy (Elsevier) | August 10th, 2021

This study asks whether different types of water systems serve different types of communities and differ with respect to affordability. Using 2017 data for California we

This study asks whether different types of water systems serve different types of communities and differ with respect to affordability. Using 2017 data for California we match service area boundaries with census income data and rate structures to compare the geography, income distribution and affordability of water rates within communities served by systems of different ownership types. We find that for-profit and publicly owned systems serve communities of similar income distributions, while not-for-profit mutual water companies serve higher-income communities. Regulated privately-owned systems charge more for water while providing more low-income assistance and shutting off fewer households than publicly owned systems.

Water Temperature Differences by Plant Community and Location in Re-established Wetlands in the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta, California, July 2005 to February 2008

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | ?

Rates of carbon storage in wetlands are determined by the balance of its inputs and losses, both of which are affected by environmental factors such as water temperature

Rates of carbon storage in wetlands are determined by the balance of its inputs and losses, both of which are affected by environmental factors such as water temperature and depth. In the autumn of 1997, the U.S. Geological Survey re-established two wetlands with different shallow water depths—about 25 and 55 centimeters deep—to investigate the potential to reverse subsidence of delta islands by preserving and accumulating organic substrates derived from plant biomass inputs over time. Because cooler water temperatures can slow decomposition rates and increase accretion of plant biomass, water temperature was recorded from July 2005 to February 2008 in the deeper of the two wetlands, where areas of emergent and submerged vegetation persisted throughout the study, to assess differences in water temperature between the two vegetation types. Water temperature was compared at three depths in the water column between areas of emergent and submerged vegetation and between areas near the water inflow and in the wetland interior in both vegetation types. The latter comparison was a way of evaluating the effect of the length of time water had resided in the wetland on water temperatures. There were statistically significant differences in water temperature at all depths between the two vegetation types. Overall, in areas of emergent marsh vegetation, the mean water temperature at the surface was 1.4 degrees Celsius (°C) less than it was in areas of submerged vegetation; however, when analyses accounted for the changes in temperature due to seasonal and diurnal cycles, differences in the mean water temperature between the vegetation types were even greater than this. For example, in the spring, the mean temperatures in areas of emergent marsh vegetation at the surface, midpoint, and near the sediment in the water column were 2.0, 2.3, and 2.1 °C less, respectively, than water temperatures in areas of submerged vegetation. When diurnal changes in temperature were accounted for by comparing temperatures in mid-afternoon (at 3 p.m.), water-temperature differences were even greater than the seasonal means indicated. In areas of emergent vegetation, the mean temperatures were cooler than temperatures in areas of submerged vegetation at the surface, the mid-point, and near the sediment in the water column by 3.9, 3.6, and 2.3 °C, respectively. Furthermore, from July 2005 through December 2006, water temperatures at the surface in the interior of the wetland were significantly cooler than in areas near the inflow supplying water from the San Joaquin River by 1.0 °C in areas of submerged vegetation and by 1.1 °C in areas of emergent vegetation.

Water Temperature Modeling Platform Mid-Term Review

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | October 21st, 2021

Water to Supply the Land: Irrigated Agriculture in the Colorado River Basin

Pacific Institute | May 9th, 2013

The Colorado River, recently named America’s most endangered river, supports millions of people in the American Southwest and northwest Mexico and helps irrigate millio

The Colorado River, recently named America’s most endangered river, supports millions of people in the American Southwest and northwest Mexico and helps irrigate millions of acres of land. Yet demands on the river already exceed the river’s average supply, a situation that is projected to get worse in coming years as climate change reduces runoff at the same time that fast-growing southwest cities demand more water. Irrigated agriculture currently consumes more than 70% of the water supply within the Colorado River basin, making it critical for more efficient water use. For the first time, new research from the Pacific Institute describes the extent of irrigated agriculture throughout the seven Colorado River basin states and two additional states in Mexico, the types of crops grown, and the amount of water used to grow these crops. In addition, the new report – Water to Supply the Land: Irrigated Agriculture in the Colorado River Basin – compares several agricultural management scenarios and the potential water savings and costs associated with each. Importantly, none of the scenarios remove agricultural land from production. More than 90% of pasture and cropland in the 256,000-square-mile Colorado River Basin requires irrigation, with about 60% of the irrigated acreage devoted to pasture, alfalfa, and other forage crops used to feed cattle and horses. These forage crops consume about 5 million acre-feet per year, equivalent to a third of the river’s annual flow. Employing innovative irrigation techniques more strategically and in more places – techniques that many farmers are already using – can help ensure agriculture in the basin states continues in the face of rising demand and climate change’s projected impact on supply. Modeling a series of agricultural water management conservation strategies – including regulated deficit irrigation, crop shifting, and advanced irrigation technologies – the Pacific Institute compared potential water savings and costs associated with individual scenarios. The analysis shows considerable water savings are possible. For example, almost a million acre-feet of water may be generated by irrigating alfalfa less often (a practice known as “regulated deficit irrigation”) throughout the basin in the U.S., at an estimated base cost of approximately $81 per acre-foot. Other scenarios, such as shifting to less water-intensive crops, also yield impressive water savings with relatively low costs and without reducing the total amount of irrigated acreage in the basin. For example, replacing about 10% of the basin’s irrigated alfalfa acreage with cotton and wheat could save about 250,000 acre-feet of consumptive water use each year, with estimated base costs of less than $40 per acre-foot. Total reductions in water withdrawals and applied water would be even greater.

Water transfers (Resource Management Strategy)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 29th, 2016

The California Water Code (CWC) defines a water transfer as a temporary or long-term change in the point of diversion, place of use, or purpose of use due to a transfer,

The California Water Code (CWC) defines a water transfer as a temporary or long-term change in the point of diversion, place of use, or purpose of use due to a transfer, sale, lease, or exchange of water or water rights. Temporary water transfers have a duration of one year or less (CWC Section 1725). Long-term water transfers have a duration of more than one year (CWC Section 1728). Transfers can be between water districts that are neighboring or across the state, provided there is a means to convey or store the water. A water transfer can be a temporary or permanent sale of water or a water right by the water right holder, a lease of the right to use water from the water right holder, or a sale or lease of a contractual right to water supply. Water transfers can also take the form of long-term contracts for the purpose of improving long-term supply reliability.

Water Transfers Brochure: Guidance and Information for Water Transfers

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | February 13th, 2014

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) developed the Water Transfers Brochure (Brochure) to assist water purveyors in the preparation of water transfer and Warren Act pr

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) developed the Water Transfers Brochure (Brochure) to assist water purveyors in the preparation of water transfer and Warren Act proposals and documents. It is a “work in progress” that will be refined as necessary to adapt to changing circumstances or improve its utility, this Brochure provides general guidance on communicating, preparing, and submitting a proposal, as well as presenting estimated timelines for associated requirements, actions, and approvals. This Brochure is meant to increase the efficiency of the logistical and administrative processes that Reclamation and the transfer parties control and to further the goal of timely facilitation of water transfers that require conveyance through Central Valley Project (CVP) facilities or otherwise require Reclamation approval. This Brochure provides a framework and certain details of the processes; however, dependent on the transfer or Warren Act proposal, additional coordination or steps may be necessary to facilitate approval of a proposed action. Reclamation encourages all water purveyors to work closely with their designated Reclamation representative in developing transfer, exchange, and/or Warren Act proposals.

Water Transfers in Water Resource Systems

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) | March 1st, 1995

Water transfers are a common component of many regional water systems and are being increasingly considered for meeting growing water demands and for managing the impacts

Water transfers are a common component of many regional water systems and are being increasingly considered for meeting growing water demands and for managing the impacts of drought.  Water transfers can take many forms and can serve a number of different purposes in the planning and operation of water resource systems. However, to be successful, water transfers must be carefully integrated with traditional water supply augmentation and demand management measures.  This integration requires increased cooperation among different water use sectors and resolution of numerous technical and institutional issues, including impacts to third parties.  This paper identifies the many forms that water transfers can take, some of the benefits they can generate, and the difficulties and constraints which must be overcome in their implementation.

Water Use Across the Conterminous United States, Water Years 2010–20, Chapter D of U.S. Geological Survey Integrated Water Availability Assessment—2010–20

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | January 15th, 2025

Key Points An estimated average of 223,594 million gallons per day (Mgal/d; 26,179 million cubic meters per month [Mm3/mo]) were withdrawn from freshwater sources fo

Key Points An estimated average of 223,594 million gallons per day (Mgal/d; 26,179 million cubic meters per month [Mm3/mo]) were withdrawn from freshwater sources for human use for crop irrigation, public supply, and thermoelectric power across the conterminous United States (CONUS) during water years 2010–20. Including saline water, withdrawals were 244,817 Mgal/d (28,677 Mm3/mo). Average withdrawals and consumptive use (1) for CONUS crop irrigation during water years 2010–20 were 105,497 and 75,698 Mgal/d, respectively; (2) for public supply were 35,440 and 4,219 Mgal/d, respectively; and (3) for thermoelectric power from fresh water were 82,656 Mgal/d and 2,904 Mgal/d, respectively. Across the CONUS, the source of water—whether groundwater, surface water, public supply, reclaimed wastewater, or a combination thereof—typically depends on the availability of these sources and on the category of use. The water-use categories of industrial, self-supplied domestic, mining, livestock, and aquaculture together accounted for 10 percent of water withdrawals in the United States in 2015. Although a small proportion nationally, these water-use categories can be locally important. Companion chapters: U.S. Geological Survey Integrated Water Availability Assessment—2010–20, Chapter A Water Supply in the Conterminous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, Water Years 2010–20, Chapter B Status of Water-Quality Conditions in the United States, 2010–20, Chapter C  Climate Change and Future Water Availability in the United States, Chapter E  Integrated Water Availability in the Conterminous United States, 2010–20, Chapter F 

Water Use by Urban Lawns and Trees in Los Angeles

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) | July 24th, 2017

Water Use in California

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | April 19th, 2023