Bed-Material Characteristics of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California, 2010–13

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | January 9th, 2017

The characteristics of bed material at selected sites within the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California, during 2010–13 are described in a study conducted by the U.

The characteristics of bed material at selected sites within the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California, during 2010–13 are described in a study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation. During 2010-13, six complete sets of samples were collected. Samples were initially collected at 30 sites; however, starting in 2012, samples were collected at 7 additional sites. These sites are generally collocated with an active streamgage. At all but one site, a separate bed-material sample was collected at three locations within the channel (left, right, and center). Bed-material samples were collected using either a US BMH–60 or a US BM–54 (for sites with higher stream velocity) cable-suspended, scoop sampler. Samples from each location were oven-dried and sieved. Bed material finer than 2 millimeters was subsampled using a sieving riffler and processed using a Beckman Coulter LS 13–320 laser diffraction particle-size analyzer. To determine the organic content of the bed material, the loss on ignition method was used for one subsample from each location. Particle-size distributions are presented as cumulative percent finer than a given size. Median and 90th-percentile particle size, and the percentage of subsample mass lost using the loss on ignition method for each sample are also presented in this report.

Before the Well Runs Dry: Improving the Linkage Between Groundwater and Land Use Planning

Stanford University | April 17th, 2014

There is no comprehensive regulation of groundwater use in the state of California,* and the right to withdraw groundwater is based on surface land ownership. This create

There is no comprehensive regulation of groundwater use in the state of California,* and the right to withdraw groundwater is based on surface land ownership. This creates a direct linkage between every land use that requires water and the groundwater underneath that land. Because so many aspects of groundwater use are not regulated by the state, local governments’ land use decisions become a key driver of demands on groundwater. Nonetheless, land use decisions and planning are not well coordinated with groundwater management. Understanding how land use decisions affect groundwater resources has become increasingly important in recent years, as groundwater provides approximately 30 percent of California’s water supply in average years and 40 percent of the supply in dry years. In some places, the reliance on groundwater during droughts is much higher, due to reduced supplies of surface water. Growth from housing and irrigated agriculture, among other demands, have led to chronic overdraft and declining groundwater elevations in many communities that rely heavily on groundwater. To address this problem, Water in the West convened groundwater managers, land use planners, water lawyers, consultants and academics at Stanford University for an Uncommon Dialogue in the fall of 2013. Its aim was to discuss a growing consensus that more effective integration of land use planning and groundwater management is an essential component of preserving groundwater aquifers for the future, and to share possible means of accomplishing this in California. This report, shaped in part by the Dialogue, provides the background and regulatory context for land use planning and groundwater management in California, shares case studies that highlight the intersection of groundwater and land use, and makes specific recommendations to improve the linkage between land use decisions and groundwater management in the state. *The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was signed into law five months after this was published. 

Bending the Curve of Global Freshwater Biodiversity Loss: An Emergency Recovery Plan

Oxford University Press (OUP) | February 19th, 2020

Beneath the Surface

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) | November 1st, 2020

In a state where water is a limited and vital resource, it is imperative to wade into the difficult issues associated with groundwater management in Texas. More specifica

In a state where water is a limited and vital resource, it is imperative to wade into the difficult issues associated with groundwater management in Texas. More specifically, this report, with the input of a diverse group of experienced professionals, provides an overview of the groundwater landscape in Texas, describing some of its key features, and then identifying five of the most important challenges to holistic, proactive groundwater management for Texas.  To set the stage for the groundwater scenario, we list and briefly discuss some key features of Texas groundwater: 1) it is private property; 2) it is primarily managed by groundwater conservation districts; 3) its levels are declining; 4) its legal regime is not the same as the laws governing surface water; 5) it is viewed as an extractable and transferable resource; and 6) its current management framework is challenged. These aspects of Texas groundwater raise interesting and often difficult questions at many levels, in a wide range of settings, from a wide range of perspectives. Landowners; companies in search of a water supply for various purposes; water utilities; private well owners; groundwater conservation districts; river authorities; regional water planning groups; agricultural irrigators; conservation interests; municipal and industrial water suppliers and users; state agencies; government officials; policy makers; legislators; and many others are looking for answers to the questions that persist for Texas groundwater – the source of about 60% of the state’s annual water use.  This document presents five of the major challenges to groundwater management in Texas that have been identified for further consideration and review, then briefly describes each of the five issues presented. Along with background information, the document sets out various perspectives on the issue, provides information on recent or pending litigation, and presents information on the handling of the issue in past sessions of the Texas Legislature.  The first issue presented discusses the challenges related to regulating privately owned, yet shared, groundwater. In the 2012 case Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day (“Day”), the Texas Supreme Court held that landowners own their groundwater in place.1 The Supreme Court described how one purpose of groundwater regulation, similar to oil and gas, is to afford a landowner his fair share of the groundwater beneath his property. But the court also stated that landowners are subject to reasonable regulation by Groundwater Conservation Districts (GCDs). The legal uncertainty over what “fair share” and “reasonable regulation” mean is upending current groundwater regulation as the districts struggle to allocate groundwater resources under this relatively new holding.  Next, the document discusses the challenges related to groundwater management at the GCD level. GCD critics argue that it is difficult for GCDs to effectively manage groundwater in a fragmented regulatory structure. Proponents of local management of groundwater, however, argue that local control ensures representation of community values and concerns and recognition of hydrogeologic conditions specific to a district’s jurisdiction. The reality is that it can be challenging for GCDs to manage groundwater with actual and threatened litigation increasing and without sufficient funding and science to support their responsibilities under the Water Code.  Third, the challenges associated with groundwater and surface water interactions are presented. Despite the hydrogeological relationship between groundwater and surface water in some areas of the state, Texas water law and policy are often implemented in a fashion that fails to adequately recognize this connection. The absence of a framework for conjunctively managing groundwater and surface water may adversely affect both groundwater and surface water resources.  Fourth, the document describes the challenges related to sustainable management of groundwater. Texas groundwater statutes set the guiding terms for how local GCDs and groundwater management areas (GMAs) set management goals. Recent changes to those laws, and ongoing disputes about how much groundwater can or should be removed from an aquifer, have arguably moved the law away from sustainable management goals and toward maximizing groundwater withdrawals.  Next, there is a discussion of the challenges associated with the marketing and exporting of groundwater. With growing populations, some utilities and cities in search of additional water supplies are turning to importing groundwater from rural areas of Texas. The existing and proposed large-scale marketing and export of groundwater is generating a variety of conflicts, pitting rural interests against urban, potentially threatening the economies, property rights, and ecology of rural areas from where groundwater is exported, and creating regulatory and political challenges for local GCDs.  Finally, there is a brief discussion of a number of additional issues related to groundwater management in Texas, such as aquifer storage and recovery, brackish groundwater desalination, abandoned wells, and transboundary aquifers. 

Beneath the Surface: Why Reservoirs Won't Solve California's Water Woes

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) | November 19th, 2024

Water storage and conveyance have fundamentally shaped modern California. The vast agricultural industry, as well as globally important cities like Los Angeles, were made

Water storage and conveyance have fundamentally shaped modern California. The vast agricultural industry, as well as globally important cities like Los Angeles, were made possible by storing and moving water around the state. Reservoirs are one of the primary components of California’s water storage system. There are nearly 1,500 surface storage reservoirs throughout the state, which together can store a year’s supply of water for farms and cities. But reservoirs come with high costs. They destroy and degrade habitats and alter flows in rivers and streams, harming native fish and wildlife. They emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases, worsening climate change. They cost taxpayers billions of dollars to build and maintain. And as the climate continues to warm, reservoirs will become less efficient, losing more and more of the water they hold to evaporation.  This report examines reservoirs’ environmental harms and explains why new reservoirs are not the solution to our 21st century water problems. 

Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds

Pacific Institute | March 1st, 2021

Nature-based solutions (NBS) have the potential to combat pressing global problems, including climate change, water security and biodiversity loss. This guide builds on

Nature-based solutions (NBS) have the potential to combat pressing global problems, including climate change, water security and biodiversity loss. This guide builds on Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds Landscape Assessment (Shiao et al., 2020), which highlights the barriers for businesses to implement NBS at a large scale. The primary challenge for corporations is that there is no standardized method to identify, estimate and monitor the benefits that NBS can provide, making it hard to build the case for investments in these solutions.

Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds Guide - Version 2

Pacific Institute | August 23rd, 2023

This guide helps users account for and measure the stacked water,1 carbon, biodiversity and socio-economic benefits of a Nature-Based Solution NBS project. Accounting for

This guide helps users account for and measure the stacked water,1 carbon, biodiversity and socio-economic benefits of a Nature-Based Solution NBS project. Accounting for these benefits will improve a company’s impact reporting and help build the business case for green solutions, thereby supporting widespread investment, implementation and upscaling of NBS. This work will increase awareness of the value of NBS, not only for ecosystem health and community development, but also for companies directly.

Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds Landscape Assessment

United Nations (UN) | August 3rd, 2020

This landscape assessment is the outcome of Phase 1 of a tri-phased project and was designed to inform the path forward for engaging the private sector to invest in natu

This landscape assessment is the outcome of Phase 1 of a tri-phased project and was designed to inform the path forward for engaging the private sector to invest in nature-based solutions (NBS). A literature review was undertaken to understand the contemporary thinking around NBS and identify key opportunities and challenges faced by decision makers, practitioners and researchers. Interviews conducted with representatives of businesses, civil society and academia who have already implemented NBS projects or are looking to do so yielded qualitative responses to complement or contrast with the findings from the literature review.

Benefit-Cost Analysis for Water System Planning

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | January 1st, 1971

Published by the American Geophysical Union as part of the Water Resources Monograph Series, Volume 2. This is a small book on a very large topic: water resource syste

Published by the American Geophysical Union as part of the Water Resources Monograph Series, Volume 2. This is a small book on a very large topic: water resource system planning. The term water resource system as used here means a combination of structural and nonstructural measures, including rules of operation, for transforming stocks or flows of water into more useful outputs of water, water services, or water-related products. Examples of these outputs would include municipal water supply, flood control, waste disposal and water quality management, navigation, irrigation, and hydroelectric power. Both the original water inputs and the outputs are characterized by quantity, quality, time, and place.

Benefit-Cost Analysis of The California WaterFix

University of the Pacific, Center for Business and Policy Research | August 17th, 2016

This benefit - cost analysis of the California Water Fix was prepared by Dr. Jeffrey Micheal with the University of the Pacific Center for Business and Policy Research; D

This benefit - cost analysis of the California Water Fix was prepared by Dr. Jeffrey Micheal with the University of the Pacific Center for Business and Policy Research; Dr. Michael is an opponent of the project. He writes, "This analysis is based on data and assumptions in the revised environmental documents produced by DWR to support the proposal’s environmental review. The results show the WaterFix costs are four times larger than its benefits, and thus the project is not is not economically justified."