Bay Delta Plan Phase 2 Workshop Summary Report

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | January 1st, 2013

The California State Water Resources Control Board (Board) is tasked with updating the 2006 Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan). The Boa

The California State Water Resources Control Board (Board) is tasked with updating the 2006 Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan). The Board planning activities for this process have four phases. Phase 1 focused on San Joaquin River flow requirements and southern Delta water quality objectives. The current phase (Phase 2) focuses on fish and wildlife beneficial uses. Phase 3 will focus on modifications to water rights and Phase 4 will focus on the development and implementation of flow requirements for priority Delta tributaries. Phase 2 workshops were held to conduct discussions and generate information regarding the scientific and technical basis for considering potential changes to the Bay-Delta Plan. The workshops were informal; the Board did not take any official action and there was no sworn testimony. Information provided during the workshops will augment information developed through earlier reviews and will inform the Board members and staff on what, if any, changes should be made to the Bay-Delta Plan. Three workshops were held. Full workshop agendas are provided in Appendix A. 1. Ecosystem Changes and the Low Salinity Zone, September 5–6, 2012 – including the effects of the low salinity zone on various estuarine species, the interaction of salinity with non-flow related factors, and the identification of modeling or other tools that can be used to measure and reasonably protect estuarine habitat. 2. Bay-Delta Fishery Resources, October 1–2, 2012 – including flow, cold water pool, habitat, and water project operational constraints needed to reasonably protect Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River winter-run, Central Valley late fall–run Chinook salmon, and pelagic species (including Delta smelt and longfin smelt); and the interaction of these issues with non-flow related factors. 3. Analytical Tools for Evaluating the Water Supply, Hydrodynamic, and Hydropower Effects of the Bay-Delta Plan, November 13–14, 2012 – including the CalSim II water supply model, DSM2 and RMA2 hydrodynamic models, Plexus hydropower model, and others as  applicable, together with results from applying these models to various scenarios.

Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan (Bay Delta Plan)

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | December 13th, 2006

"Bay Delta Plan" is short for the State Water Resources Control Board's (State Water Board) San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary Water Quality Control P

"Bay Delta Plan" is short for the State Water Resources Control Board's (State Water Board) San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary Water Quality Control Plan. The Bay-Delta Plan identifies the beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta, water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of those beneficial uses, and a program of implementation for achieving the objectives. The Bay-Delta Plan, when implemented, can determine the amount and timing of water entering and moving through the Delta. The State Water Board holds dual responsibilities of allocating surface water rights and protecting water quality. The State Water Board allocates water through an administrative system that is intended to maximize the beneficial uses of water while protecting the public trust, serving the public interest, and preventing the waste and unreasonable use or method of diversion of water. While most water quality control planning is done by the Regional Water Boards, the State Water Board has authority to adopt statewide water quality control plans. The State Water Board adopts the Bay-Delta Plan because of the Delta's importance as a major source of water supply for the state. The Bay-Delta Plan protects water quality in the region and includes water quality objectives to protect fish and wildlife beneficial uses through inflows to the Delta from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and Delta outflows, in addition to objectives for salinity to protect agricultural beneficial uses. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is in the process of a phased review and update of the 2006 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta) (referred to as the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan). To learn more about the Bay-Delta Plan, click here. In 2009, the State Water Board began the process of reviewing and likely revising the 2006 Bay Delta Plan.  At the time of the archiving of this document, that update process still continues.  For the latest information, click here to visit the State Water Resources Control Board page for the Bay-Delta Plan Update.. RELATED DOCUMENT: Water Rights Decision 1641, the document that implements the 1995 Bay Delta Plan and is still in force.

Bayesian nitrate source apportionment to individual groundwater wells in the Central Valley by use of elemental and isotopic tracers

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | July 31st, 2016

Groundwater quality is a concern in alluvial aquifers that underlie agricultural areas, such as in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Shallow domestic wells (less tha

Groundwater quality is a concern in alluvial aquifers that underlie agricultural areas, such as in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Shallow domestic wells (less than 150 m deep) in agricultural areas are often contaminated by nitrate. Agricultural and rural nitrate sources include dairy manure, synthetic fertilizers, and septic waste. Knowledge of the relative proportion that each of these sources contributes to nitrate concentration in individual wells can aid future regulatory and land management decisions. We show that nitrogen and oxygen isotopes of nitrate, boron isotopes, and iodine concentrations are a useful, novel combination of groundwater tracers to differentiate between manure, fertilizers, septic waste, and natural sources of nitrate. Furthermore, in this work, we develop a new Bayesian mixing model in which these isotopic and elemental tracers were used to estimate the probability distribution of the fractional contributions of manure, fertilizers, septic waste, and natural sources to the nitrate concentration found in an individual well. The approach was applied to 56 nitrate-impacted private domestic wells located in the San Joaquin Valley. Model analysis found that some domestic wells were clearly dominated by the manure source and suggests evidence for majority contributions from either the septic or fertilizer source for other wells. But, predictions of fractional contributions for septic and fertilizer sources were often of similar magnitude, perhaps because modeled uncertainty about the fraction of each was large. For validation of the Bayesian model, fractional estimates were compared to surrounding land use and estimated source contributions were broadly consistent with nearby land use types.

Beaches

Scientific American | August 1st, 1960

Beaches are natural playgrounds partly under the sun and partly under the sea where people can swim and surfboard, sun themselves and study other people. This human a

Beaches are natural playgrounds partly under the sun and partly under the sea where people can swim and surfboard, sun themselves and study other people. This human activity tends to obscure the fact that the beach itself is constantly in motion, quietly changing its configuration and restlessly shifting its position, grain by grain, until huge masses of sand have been moved. On a small scale and in a matter of hours the sand castles disappear and the footprints are erased; on a large scale, after days and months, the height of the sand around the rocks changes, the waves break in new places and the beach becomes broader or narrower. Indeed, over a period of years large quantities of sand may arrive or depart, posing complex problems of conservation for the people who want to enjoy the beach. This dynamic quality was incorporated by the late Columbia University physiographer Douglas W. Johnson into a definition: "A beach is a deposit of material which is in transit either alongshore or off-and-on shore." Thus three elements make a beach: a quantity of rocky material, a shore-line area in which it moves and a supply of energy to move it.

Beale Air Force Base Environmental Cleanup Program Issue 67

U.S. Air Force | October 31st, 2015

Bear Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Bear Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency | June 15th, 2022

The GSP provides the geographical and managerial context of the Bear Valley Basin, summarizes the groundwater basin setting (including groundwater conditions, water budge

The GSP provides the geographical and managerial context of the Bear Valley Basin, summarizes the groundwater basin setting (including groundwater conditions, water budget, and management areas), describes the criteria used to measure and demonstrate sustainability, reviews the existing groundwater monitoring and management programs, and defines how those actions will be incorporated into the Bear Valley Basin GSP to achieve and maintain sustainability in the future.

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.