Shop – California Water Library

Page

Showing
681-691 of 862

Per Page

Sort By

State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) | March 14th, 2018

Summary

The climate across California is changing, and the effects, such as rising average temperatures, shrinking mountain snowpack, more intense storms, and higher sea

The climate across California is changing, and the effects, such as rising average temperatures, shrinking mountain snowpack, more intense storms, and higher sea levels are expected to continue and worsen in the coming decades. Sea-level rise is caused by the thermal expansion of warming ocean water and melting of land ice as the Earth warms. It is one of the most obvious manifestations of the trend of climate change and is an immediate and real threat to lives, livelihoods, transportation, economies, and the environment in California. In April 2017, catalyzed by direction from Governor Brown and the need to ensure that best available science was informing sea-level rise planning decisions in California, a Working Group of the California Ocean Protection Council’s Science Advisory Team (OPC-SAT) released a report, entitled “Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise.” The Rising Seas Report was prepared and peer-reviewed by some of the nation’s foremost experts in coastal processes, climate and sea-level rise science, observational and modeling science, the science of extremes, and decision-making under uncertainty. The report synthesized the current state of sea-level rise science, including advances in modeling and improved understanding of the processes that could drive extreme global sea-level rise as a result of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The report found that: Scientific understanding of sea-level rise is advancing at a rapid pace. The direction of sea-level change is clear; sea levels are rising. The rate of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is increasing, and California is particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise caused by ice loss from West Antarctica. New scientific evidence has highlighted the potential for extreme sea-level rise. Probabilities of specific sea-level increases can inform decisions. Current policy decisions are shaping our coastal future. Waiting for scientific certainty is neither a safe nor prudent option. The increased understanding of sea-level rise projections and polar ice sheet loss warranted an update to the State’s sea-level rise guidance document to ensure decisions were based on the best available science. Additionally, an increased policy focus requiring state and local governments to incorporate climate change into decision making merited an update to address the needs of both state and local audiences. This updated document, the “State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance” (Guidance), provides a bold, science-based methodology for state and local governments to analyze and assess the risks associated with sea-level rise, and to incorporate sea-level rise into their planning, permitting, and investment decisions. This Guidance provides: 1. A synthesis of the best available science on sea- level rise projections and rates for California; 2. A step-by-step approach for state agencies and local governments to evaluate those projections and related hazard information in decision making; and 3. Preferred coastal adaptation approaches.

View Document Download Now Email

State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance—2018 Update

Ocean Protection Council (OPC) | March 4th, 2018

Summary

This updated document, the “State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance” (Guidance), provides a bold, science-based methodology for state and local governments to ana

View Document Download Now Email

State of the Estuary 2019 Update

San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) | October 22nd, 2019

Summary

The San Francisco Estuary is a large and diverse system. Hundreds of miles of coastline stretch from the wide valleys of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers to the stee

The San Francisco Estuary is a large and diverse system. Hundreds of miles of coastline stretch from the wide valleys of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers to the steep headlands of the Golden Gate, with vast agricultural fields in the Delta and urbanized shorelines in Silicon Valley and many of the region’s cities. The complexity and scale of this system means it can take years to detect and assess changes. This interim State of the Estuary Report checks in on a few indicators of health and explores where the assessment should head over time. In the four years since the 2015 State of the Estuary Report, two issues have emerged as critical to how we assess the health of the estuarine ecosystem at the heart of the Bay Area and the Delta. First, the health of the Estuary and of the people who live near it and depend on it are inextricably linked. We need a healthy Bay and Delta to protect our shorelines from sea level rise, help keep our waters clean, provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife, and give people a place to enjoy nature. We also need to think more about human communities as we assess the health of natural communities. This focus means addressing environmental injustices that are deeply embedded in our culture and patterns of development. The second critical issue to emerge is the need for a greater focus on landscape resilience—how well the Bay and the Delta are equipped to respond to change—so that people and wildlife can thrive as climate change progresses. Taking these two ideas together, this report focuses on the nexus of social and ecological resilience as we look toward the future. The first section of the Report updates indicators of ecological health that span the entire extent of the San Francisco Estuary (Bay and Delta). Recent data show continued progress along the trajectories of the past decade. Tidal marsh restoration is proceeding at a brisk pace in the Bay and gaining traction in the Delta, while urban water conservation continues to meet mandated benchmarks, even during the drought. On the other hand, flows through the Estuary and across its floodplains continue to be well below levels that could increase and restore ecosystem health. Freshwater flows are a lynchpin of ecosystem processes that sustain physical habitats, fuel the food web, and regulate water quality. Creative approaches to using and re-using fresh water for environmental purposes are needed. Long-term trend analysis shows that fish communities in the Bay are declining. This analysis scores an index of 10 attributes of a healthy fish community. The index focuses on fish in offshore areas, and may not capture benefits to fish from near-shore wetland restoration projects. Despite this slow decline, fish communities in the saltier parts of the Estuary remain in good condition, while those in the brackish and freshwater areas are in poor condition. The next section of the report discusses three emerging indicators of Estuary health, offering options for how to assess resilience in future reports. Here, for the first time, the resilience of the Estuary’s shores is evaluated through the lens of subsidence and nature-based features. Elevation relative to sea level is a basic currency that must be tracked as the Pacific Ocean rises into the Estuary. The potential for the Estuary shore to be resilient to climate change and continue to provide benefits to people is related to how much of the shore zone is nature-based. The final emerging indicator, urban green space, is a first attempt to assess how access to nature is distributed across more and less advantaged communities. More work is needed to finalize all these emerging indicators before they can be included in any future quantitative assessment of the State of the Estuary. These emerging and updated indicators will help focus efforts to restore the Estuary’s health. In addition to continuing the successful aspects of restoration and conservation that this report describes, we need more investment in creative ways to use and restore flows for environmental health, to expand and build resilient shorelines and to weave considerations of social equity more strongly into efforts to improve environmental health. - J. Letitia Grenier, Lead Scientist

View Document Download Now Email

State Water Project Adaptation Strategy

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | August 20th, 2025

Summary

This State Water Project Adaptation Strategy, developed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), presents a forward-looking roadmap for adapting the State W

View Document Download Now Email

State Water Project Long-Term Drought Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | May 21st, 2024

Summary

The 2024 State Water Project (SWP) Long-Term Drought Plan consolidates information and actions taken during past droughts along with descriptions of the actions taken by

View Document Download Now Email

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the Salinas Valley - Paso Robles Area Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 21st, 2022

Summary

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP or Plan) conforms to specific requirements

View Document Download Now Email

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the San Joaquin Valley – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 28th, 2022

Summary

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP or Plan) conforms to specific requirements

View Document Download Now Email

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the San Joaquin Valley – Kern County Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plans

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 28th, 2022

Summary

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) conforms to specific requirements of the

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) conforms to specific requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the GSP, and whether the GSP adversely affects the ability of an adjacent basin to implement its GSP or impedes achievement of sustainability goals in an adjacent basin. (Water Code 10733.) The Department is directed to issue an assessment of the GSP within two years of its submission. (Water Code 10733.4.) SGMA allows for multiple GSPs implemented by multiple groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) and coordinated pursuant to a single coordination agreement that covers the entire basin to be an acceptable planning scenario. (Water Code 10727.) In the San Joaquin Valley – Kern County Subbasin (Subbasin), five separate GSPs were prepared by 11 GSAs pursuant to the required coordination agreement. This Statement of Findings explains the Department’s decision regarding the multiple GSPs covering the Subbasin submitted jointly by the multiple GSAs. Collectively, the five GSPs and the coordination agreement are referred to as the Plan for the Subbasin. Individually, the GSPs include the following: • Kern Groundwater Authority Groundwater Sustainability Plan (KGA GSP) – prepared by the Kern Groundwater Authority (KGA) GSA, Semitropic Water Storage District (SWSD) GSA, Cawelo Water District (CWD) GSA, City of McFarland GSA, Pioneer GSA, and West Kern Water District (WKWD) GSA. o Divided into 15 management areas, 22 sub-management areas. • Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Kern River GSP) – prepared by the Kern River GS and Greenfield County Water District GSA. o Divided into three management areas, 11 sub-management areas. • Buena Vista Water Storage District GSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (BV GSP) – prepared by the Buena Vista Water Storage District (BV) GSA. o Divided into two management areas. • Olcese Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Olcese GSP) – prepared by the Olcese Water District (OWD) GSA. • Henry Miller Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Henry Miller GSP) – prepared by the Henry Miller Water District (HMWD) GSA. Department management has reviewed the enclosed Staff Report, which recommends that the deficiencies identified should preclude approval of the Plan. Based on its review of the Staff Report, Department management is satisfied that staff have conducted a thorough evaluation and assessment of the Plan and concurs with, and hereby adopts, staff’s recommendation and all the corrective actions provided. The Department thus deems the Plan incomplete based on the Staff Report and the findings contained herein.

View Document Download Now Email

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the San Joaquin Valley – KIngs Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plans

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 28th, 2022

Summary

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) conforms to specific requirements of th

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) conforms to specific requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the GSP, and whether the GSP adversely affects the ability of an adjacent basin to implement its GSP or impedes achievement of sustainability goals in an adjacent basin. (Water Code § 10733.) The Department is directed to issue an assessment of the GSP within two years of its submission. (Water Code § 10733.4.) SGMA allows for multiple GSPs implemented by multiple groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) and coordinated pursuant to a single coordination agreement that covers the entire basin to be an acceptable planning scenario. (Water Code § 10727.) In the San Joaquin Valley – Kings Subbasin (Subbasin), seven separate GSPs were prepared by seven GSAs pursuant to the required coordination agreement. This Statement of Findings explains the Department’s decision regarding the multiple GSPs covering the Subbasin. Collectively, the seven GSPs and the coordination agreement are referred to as the Plan for the Subbasin. Individually, the GSPs include the following: • Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Central Kings GSP) – prepared the Central Kings GSA (CKGSA). • James Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (James GSP) – prepared by the James GSA (JGSA). • Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Kings River East GSP) – prepared by the Kings River East GSA (KREGSA). • McMullin Area Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (McMullin GSP) – prepared by the McMullin Area GSA (MAGSA). • North Fork Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (North Fork Kings GSP) – prepared by the North Fork Kings GSA (NFKGSA). • North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (North Kings GSP) – prepared by the North Kings GSA (NKGSA). San Joaquin Valley – Kings Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.08) • South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (South Kings GSP) – prepared by the South Kings GSA (SKGSA). Department management has reviewed the enclosed Staff Report, which recommends that the deficiencies identified should preclude approval of the Plan. Based on its review of the Staff Report, Department management is satisfied that staff have conducted a thorough evaluation and assessment of the Plan and concurs with, and hereby adopts, staff’s recommendation and all the corrective actions provided. The Department thus deems the Plan incomplete based on the Staff Report and the findings contained herein.

View Document Download Now Email

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the Chowchilla Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 28th, 2022

Summary

The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP or Plan) conforms to specific requirements

View Document Download Now Email

← Prev

Page : 69

State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance

State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance—2018 Update

State of the Estuary 2019 Update

State Water Project Adaptation Strategy

State Water Project Long-Term Drought Plan

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the Salinas Valley - Paso Robles Area Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the San Joaquin Valley – Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the San Joaquin Valley – Kern County Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plans

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the San Joaquin Valley – KIngs Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plans

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Incomplete Status of the Chowchilla Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Filter Results

Type

Topic

Keywords

Publisher

Basin

Hydrological Region

Search for:

Search the California Water Library

Type

Topic

Keywords

Hydrological Region

Basin