Shop – California Water Library

Page

Showing
61-71 of 103

Per Page

Sort By

Managing California’s Freshwater Ecosystems: Lessons from the 2012-16 Drought

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | November 16th, 2017

Summary

The 2012–16 drought caused unprecedented stress to California’s ecosystems and pushed many native species to the brink of extinction. It also tested the laws, policie

The 2012–16 drought caused unprecedented stress to California’s ecosystems and pushed many native species to the brink of extinction. It also tested the laws, policies, and institutions charged with protecting the environment. Eight case studies on environmental water management during the drought reveal both strengths and weaknesses in federal, state, and local response that can inform how California addresses future droughts. Three areas of reform hold promise for improving ecosystem conditions and reducing conflict: * Improve water accounting. Drought management requires accurate and timely information about water use and availability and about likely environmental response to changes in water supply. But California’s current tracking systems are neither timely nor transparent. To address these gaps, environmental water accounting and ecosystem monitoring systems need an overhaul. * Prepare for drought. With a few significant exceptions, environmental water managers were unprepared for the environmental consequences of an extended drought, and were forced to make ad hoc decisions during a crisis. Developing watershed-level plans that set ecosystem priorities and identify trade-offs would help managers anticipate drought and drive implementation of habitat investments and water allocation. Annual watering plans that guide management under different types of water years would better engage and inform water users. * Develop ecosystem water budgets. Current methods of allocating water to support ecosystem health rely on minimum flow standards that are unevenly enforced and often insufficient during drought. Ecosystem water budgets, which allocate a portion of water to the ecosystem within watersheds, could enable more flexible and effective water management during dry times. Although state and federal agencies have important

View Document Download Now Email

Mercury on a landscape scale—Balancing regional export with wildlife health

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | June 26th, 2018

Summary

The Cosumnes River watershed requires a 57–64 percent reduction in loads to meet the new Delta methylmercury (MeHg) total maximum daily load allocation, established by

The Cosumnes River watershed requires a 57–64 percent reduction in loads to meet the new Delta methylmercury (MeHg) total maximum daily load allocation, established by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Because there are no large point sources of MeHg in the watershed, the focus of MeHg load reductions will fall upon non-point sources, particularly the expansive wetlands considered to be a primary source of MeHg in the region. Few management practices have been implemented and tested in order to meet load reductions in managed wetlands, but recent efforts have shown promise. This project examines a treatment approach to reduce MeHg loads to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta by creating open-water deep cells with a small footprint at the downstream end of wetlands to promote net demethylation of MeHg and to minimize MeHg and Hg loads exiting wetlands at the Cosumnes River Preserve. Specifically, the deep cells were were located immediately up gradient of the wetland’s outflow weir and were deep enough (75–91 centimeter depth) to be vegetation-free. The topographic and hydrologic structure of each treatment wetland was modified to include open-water deep cells so that the removal of aqueous MeHg might be enhanced through (1) particle settling, (2) photo-degradation, and (3) benthic microbial demethylation. These deep cells were, therefore, expected to clean MeHg from surface water prior to its discharge to the Cosumnes River and the downstream Delta.

View Document Download Now Email

Mercury, Monomethyl Mercury, and Dissolved Organic Carbon Concentrations in Surface Water Entering and Exiting Constructed Wetlands Treated with Metal-Based Coagulants, Twitchell Island, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | August 30th, 2015

Summary

Coagulation with metal-based salts is a practice commonly employed by drinking-water utilities to decrease particle and dissolved organic carbon concentrations in water.

Coagulation with metal-based salts is a practice commonly employed by drinking-water utilities to decrease particle and dissolved organic carbon concentrations in water. In addition to decreasing dissolved organic carbon concentrations, the effectiveness of iron- and aluminum-based coagulants for decreasing dissolved concentrations both of inorganic and monomethyl mercury in water was demonstrated in laboratory studies that used agricultural drainage water from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta of California. To test the effectiveness of this approach at the field scale, nine 15-by-40-meter wetland cells were constructed on Twitchell Island that received untreated water from island drainage canals (control) or drainage water treated with polyaluminum chloride or ferric sulfate coagulants. Surface-water samples were collected approximately monthly during November 2012–September 2013 from the inlets and outlets of the wetland cells and then analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey for total concentrations of mercury and monomethyl mercury in filtered (less than 0.3 micrometers) and suspended-particulate fractions and for concentrations of dissolved organic carbon.

View Document Download Now Email

National hydrologic connectivity classification links wetlands with stream water quality

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | April 6th, 2023

Summary

Wetland hydrologic connections to downstream waters influence stream water quality. However, no systematic approach for characterizing this connectivity exists. Here usin

Wetland hydrologic connections to downstream waters influence stream water quality. However, no systematic approach for characterizing this connectivity exists. Here using physical principles, we categorized conterminous US freshwater wetlands into four hydrologic connectivity classes based on stream contact and flowpath depth to the nearest stream: riparian, non-riparian shallow, non-riparian mid-depth and non-riparian deep. These classes were heterogeneously distributed over the conterminous United States; for example, riparian dominated the south-eastern and Gulf coasts, while non-riparian deep dominated the Upper Midwest and High Plains. Analysis of a national stream dataset indicated acidification and organic matter brownification increased with connectivity. Eutrophication and sedimentation decreased with wetland area but did not respond to connectivity. This classification advances our mechanistic understanding of wetland influences on water quality nationally and could be applied globally.

View Document Download Now Email

New Life for Eroding Shorelines: Beach and Marsh Edge Change in the San Francisco Estuary

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | April 1st, 2020

Summary

Wind, waves, storms, and changing water levels have reshaped shorelines for millennia and continue to do so today. The current shape of the San Francisco (SF) Estuary sho

Wind, waves, storms, and changing water levels have reshaped shorelines for millennia and continue to do so today. The current shape of the San Francisco (SF) Estuary shoreline is relatively new; 15,000 years ago, the California shoreline was west of the Farallon Islands and 140 meters below its current level (Cohen and Laws 1992, Malamud-Roam et al. 2007). By approximately 6,000 years ago (the end of the last glacial epoch), the sea had risen to nearly its present level and filled what is now San Francisco Bay, allowing marshes to form and maintain themselves (Atwater 1979). More recently, humans have changed the shape of the shoreline. During the 1850s, many marshes expanded extensively due to increased sediment supply from hydraulic mining in the Sierra Nevada (Gilbert 1917, Goals Project 1999). Diking, dredging, and filling of marshes for agricultural and urban development began in the late 19th century and continued through the first half of the 20th century. Today, humans continue to reshape the shoreline through continued diking, dredging and filling as well as restoration projects, urbanization of watersheds, ferry wakes, and many other means. The most wide-ranging impact of human activity on the shape of shorelines is global climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions, which is accelerating the rate of sea level rise worldwide (OPC 2018). Sea level rise is likely to cause much more dramatic changes in the shape of shorelines than have been seen in recent centuries. The magnitude and pace of change will depend on the rate of sea level rise, existing shoreline conditions, and the ability of shorelines to adapt.

View Document Download Now Email

Novato Creek Baylands Historical Ecology Study

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | July 31st, 2015

Summary

Over the past century and a half, lower Novato Creek and the surrounding tidal wetlands have been heavily modified for flood control and land reclamation purposes. Levees

Over the past century and a half, lower Novato Creek and the surrounding tidal wetlands have been heavily modified for flood control and land reclamation purposes. Levees were built in the tidal portion of the mainstem channel beginning in the late 1800s to convey flood flows out to San Pablo Bay more rapidly and to remove surrounding areas from inundation. Following levee construction, the wetlands surrounding the channel were drained and converted to agricultural, residential, and industrial areas. These changes have resulted in a considerable loss of wetland habitat, reduced sediment transport to marshes and the Bay, and an overall decreased resilience of the system to sea level rise. In addition to tidal wetland modification, land use changes upstream in the Novato Creek watershed have resulted in several challenges for flood control management. Dam construction and increased runoff in the upper watershed have resulted in elevated rates of channel incision, which have increased transport of fine sediment from the upper watershed to lower Novato Creek. Channelization of tributaries and construction of irrigation ditches have likely increased drainage density in the upper watershed, also potentially contributing to increased rates of channel incision and fine sediment production (Collins 1998). Downstream, sediment transport capacity has been reduced by construction of a railroad crossing and loss of tidal prism and channel capacity associated with the diking of the surrounding marsh. As a result of the increased fine sediment supply from the watershed and the loss of sediment transport capacity in lower Novato Creek, sediment aggradation occurs within the channel, which in turn reduces the flood capacity of the channel, necessitating periodic dredging (fig. 1; Collins 1998, PWA 2002).

View Document Download Now Email

Novato Creek Baylands Vision

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | November 1st, 2015

Summary

As we rethink land management along the San Francisco Bay shoreline in the face of climate change, we know well-functioning resilient tidal landscapes can protect develop

As we rethink land management along the San Francisco Bay shoreline in the face of climate change, we know well-functioning resilient tidal landscapes can protect development and sustain native ecosystems. Here, we present a possible future vision for lower Novato Creek and adjacent baylands that includes several components that would restore and support natural processes, and, in turn, benefit aspects of flood risk management and ecosystem functioning. The Novato Creek Baylands Vision is an element of an EPA-funded project called Flood Control 2.0, which is aimed at advancing new approaches for flood risk management and habitat enhancement along the San Francisco Bay shoreline for the 21st century and beyond.

View Document Download Now Email

Potential impacts of increased coastal flooding in California due to sea-level rise

Climatic Change (Springer) | November 24th, 2011

Summary

California is likely to experience increased coastal flooding and erosion caused by sea-level rise over the next century, affecting the state’s population, infrastructu

California is likely to experience increased coastal flooding and erosion caused by sea-level rise over the next century, affecting the state’s population, infrastructure, and environment. As part of a set of studies on climate change impacts to California, this paper analyzes the potential impacts from projected sea-level rise if no actions are taken to protect the coast (a “no-adaptation scenario”), focusing on impacts to the state’s population and infrastructure. Heberger et al. (2009) also covered effects on wetlands, costs of coastal defenses, and social and environmental justice related to sea-level rise. We analyzed the effect of a medium-high greenhouse gas emissions scenario (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A2 in IPCC 2000) and included updated projections of sea-level rise based on work by Rahmstorf (Science 315(5810): 368, 2007). Under this scenario, sea levels rise by 1.4 m by the year 2100, far exceeding historical observed water level increases. By the end of this century, coastal flooding would, under this scenario, threaten regions that currently are home to approximately 480,000 people and $100 billion worth of property. Among those especially vulnerable are large numbers of low-income people and communities of color. A wide range of critical infrastructure, such as roads, hospitals, schools, emergency facilities, wastewater treatment plants, and power plants will also be at risk. Sea-level rise will inevitably change the character of California’s coast; practices and policies should be put in place to mitigate the potentially costly and life-threatening impacts of sea-level rise.

View Document Download Now Email

Productive wetlands restored for carbon sequestration quickly become net CO2 sinks with site-level factors driving uptake variability

PLOS | March 25th, 2021

Summary

Inundated wetlands can potentially sequester substantial amounts of soil carbon (C) over the long-term because of slow decomposition and high primary productivity, partic

Inundated wetlands can potentially sequester substantial amounts of soil carbon (C) over the long-term because of slow decomposition and high primary productivity, particularly in climates with long growing seasons. Restoring such wetlands may provide one of several effective negative emission technologies to remove atmospheric CO2 and mitigate climate change. However, there remains considerable uncertainty whether these heterogeneous ecotones are consistent net C sinks and to what degree restoration and management methods affect C sequestration. Since wetland C dynamics are largely driven by climate, it is difficult to draw comparisons across regions. With many restored wetlands having different functional outcomes, we need to better understand the importance of site-specific conditions and how they change over time. We report on 21 site-years of C fluxes using eddy covariance measurements from five restored fresh to brackish wetlands in a Mediterranean climate. The wetlands ranged from 3 to 23 years after restoration and showed that several factors related to restoration methods and site conditions altered the magnitude of C sequestration by affecting vegetation cover and structure. Vegetation established within two years of re-flooding but followed different trajectories depending on design aspects, such as bathymetry-determined water levels, planting methods, and soil nutrients. A minimum of 55% vegetation cover was needed to become a net C sink, which most wetlands achieved once vegetation was established. Established wetlands had a high C sequestration efficiency (i.e. the ratio of net to gross ecosystem productivity) comparable to upland ecosystems but varied between years undergoing boom-bust growth cycles and C uptake strength was susceptible to disturbance events. We highlight the large C sequestration potential of productive inundated marshes, aided by restoration design and management targeted to maximise vegetation extent and minimise disturbance. These findings have important implications for wetland restoration, policy, and management practitioners.

View Document Download Now Email

Puzzling Over the Shallows

CALFED | December 1st, 2001

Summary

View Document Download Now Email

← Prev

Page : 7

Type

Best Management Practice (2)
Case study (7)
Conference proceedings (1)
Environmental Documents (2)
Essay (1)
Fact sheet (1)
Guidance Document (3)
Journal Article (23)
magazine (19)
Manual (1)
Model (7)
Plan (2)
Report (42)
Research Article (1)
Science Panel Report (2)
Strategy (4)
Technical Report (1)

Topic

Adaptive Management (1)
Agriculture (4)
Climate Change (25)
Drought & Hydrology (2)
Ecosystem & Species Management (34)
Ecosystem Restoration (57)
Estuary News (19)
Federal Water Quality (8)
Fisheries (11)
Flood Management (21)
Geochemistry (1)
Geohydrology (3)
Geohydrology (2)
Groundwater (4)
History (1)
Infrastructure (1)
Landscape Reform (1)
Levees (8)
Modeling (9)
Non Point Pollution Sources (1)
Planning & Management (16)
Pollutants (4)
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (46)
Salinity (4)
Science Management (2)
State Water Quality (6)
Stormwater (1)
Water Project Operations (3)
Water Quality (35)
Water Quality Monitoring (7)
Water Rights, Water Law (3)
Wetland Mitigation (53)

Keywords

adaptive management (1)
agricultural drainage (4)
agriculture (4)
agriculture water use and efficiency (1)
allocations (1)
anadromous fish (5)
benthic macroinvertebrates (1)
best management practices (BMPs) (1)
bioassessment (1)
Central Valley (2)
climate change (25)
coastal aquifers (1)
Colorado River (2)
compaction (1)
desalination (1)
economic analysis (2)
ecosystem management (28)
ecosystem restoration (16)
endangered species (4)
Estuary News (19)
fisheries (11)
flood management (18)
floodplain restoration (22)
flows (2)
fugitive dust (1)
groundwater dependent ecosystems (1)
Groundwater Exchange (3)
groundwater recharge (2)
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) (1)
groundwater-surface water interaction (1)
habitat restoration (22)
hydropower (1)
infrastructure (2)
invasive species (5)
land use (9)
levees (10)
mercury (4)
mitigation (5)
modeling (9)
monitoring (9)
native fish (9)
nutrients (1)
pesticides (1)
planning and management (5)
pollutants (9)
risk assessment (1)
Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (50)
salinity (4)
Salton Sea (1)
science management (4)
sea level rise (10)
sediment (13)
stormwater (3)
streams (5)
subsidence (4)
Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) (1)
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (2)
vernal ponds (1)
wastewater (1)
water markets (2)
water project operations (4)
water quality (27)
water supply (1)
wetlands (103)

Publisher

American Fisheries Society (AFS) (1)
American Water Resources Association (AWRA) (1)
Bay Institute (2)
BioScience (Oxford University Press) (1)
CALFED (1)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (4)
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (3)
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (6)
Climatic Change (Springer) (1)
Coastal Conservancy (1)
Conservation Biology (Society for Conservation Biology) (1)
Environmental Biology of Fishes (Springer) (1)
Frontiers in Environmental Science (Frontiers) (1)
Journal of Geochemical Exploration (Elsevier) (1)
Landscape Ecology (Springer) (1)
Nature Conservancy (4)
Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) (6)
PeerJ (1)
PLOS (2)
Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) (2)
Quaternary Science Reviews (Elsevier) (1)
San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) (17)
San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) (20)
Science of the Total Environment (Elsevier) (2)
Society for Ecological Restoration (1)
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) (1)
Sonoma Land Trust (1)
Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project (1)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (3)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (1)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (9)
University of California, Davis (UC Davis) (4)

Basin

Hydrological Region

Central Coast (10)
Colorado River (4)
Lower Basin States and Mexico - Colorado River (4)
National (8)
North Coast (11)
North Lahontan (2)
Sacramento River (44)
San Francisco Bay (70)
San Joaquin River (43)
South Coast (12)
South Lahontan (2)
Tulare Lake (4)
Upper Basin States - Colorado River (2)

Reset

Search for:

CONTACT

Search the California Water Library

Type

Best Management Practice
Biological Opinion
Book/Textbook
Bulletin
Bulletin 118
California Water Plan
Case study
Conference proceedings
Congressional Testimony
Environmental Documents
Essay
Fact sheet
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) review findings
Guidance Document
Handbook/Guide
Issue Paper
Journal Article
Legal document
Legislation
Letter
Manual
Memo
Model
NGO Position Paper
Plan
Policy
Policy - state
Policy Brief
Report
Research Article
Research Brief
Science Panel Report
Strategy
Technical Report
Template
Textbook
Thesis
Water Right Decision
White Paper

Topic

Adaptive Management
Agriculture
Basic Information
California Water Fix/BDCP/Delta Conveyance
Cannabis
Climate Change
Drinking Water
Drought & Hydrology
Desalination
Ecosystem & Species Mgt
Ecosystem Restoration
Invasive Species
Wetland Mitigation
Environmental Justice
Fisheries
Flood Management
Fracking
Geochemistry
Geohydrology
Groundwater
Geochemistry
Geohydrology
History
Human Right to Water
Infrastructure
Integrated Regional Water Management
Landscape Reform
Levees
Modeling
People & Water
Policy
Planning & Management
Recycled Water
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Sanitation
Science Management
Storage
Stormwater
Transfers & Markets
Tribal Water Issues
Upper Watershed Management
Water & Energy
Water Project Operations
Water Rights, Water Law
Water Supply
Water Quality
Federal Water Quality
Non Point Pollution Sources
Point Pollution Sources
Pollutants
Salinity
State Water Quality
Water Quality Monitoring
Water Use & Efficiency
Uncategorized

Keywords

adaptive management
adjudicated basins
agricultural drainage
agriculture
agriculture water use and efficiency
allocations
anadromous fish
atmospheric rivers
basic information
basin characterization
benthic macroinvertebrates
best management practices (BMPs)
bioassessment
biological opinion (BiOp)
brine management
California Water Plan
cannabis
Central Valley
Central Valley Project (CVP)
climate change
cloud seeding
coastal aquifers
Colorado River
compaction
conjunctive use
debris flow
Delta conveyance
Delta Stewardship Council (DSC)
desalination
direct potable reuse
disadvantaged communities (DACs)
drinking water
drought
earthquake
economic analysis
ecosystem management
ecosystem restoration
endangered species
environmental justice
fisheries
flood management
floodplain restoration
flows
forest management
fracking
fugitive dust
funding
Glen Canyon Dam
Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)
Great Basin Aquifer
groundwater
Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program
groundwater contamination
groundwater dependent ecosystems
Groundwater Exchange
groundwater pumping impacts
groundwater recharge
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)
groundwater-surface water interaction
habitat restoration
history
human right to water
hydraulic fracturing
hydropower
infrastructure
Integrated Regional Water Management
interbasin flow
invasive species
irrigation
land use
levees
managed aquifer recharge (MAR) - also see Groundwater Recharge
mercury
microplastics
mitigation
modeling
monitoring
Monterey amendments
native fish
nitrates
nutrients
ocean acidification
oil and gas
outreach and engagement
pesticides
planning and management
pollutants
privatization
public trust doctrine
Quantification Settlement Agreement
reasonable use doctrine
recreation
recycled water
Regional Water Quality Control Plan
risk assessment
Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta
salinity
Salton Sea
science management
sea level rise
seawater intrusion
sediment
SGMA
snowpack
State Water Project (SWP)
storage
stormwater
streams
Subscription/Donation
subsidence
Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP)
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
Trading - See Water Markets
transboundary aquifers
Transfers - See Water Markets
tribal water issues
uncategorized
upper watershed management
urban water conservation
vernal ponds
wastewater
water and energy
water budget
water management - see planning and management
water markets
water pricing
water project operations
water quality
water rights
water supply
water supply forecasting
water transfers
water use efficiency
wetlands

Hydrological Region

Central Coast
Colorado River
Lower Basin States and Mexico - Colorado River
National
North Coast
North Lahontan
Sacramento River
San Francisco Bay
San Joaquin River
South Coast
South Lahontan
Tulare Lake
Upper Basin States - Colorado River

Basin

Acton Valley 4-005
Adobe Lake Valley 6-010
Ames Valley 7-016
Amos Valley 7-034
Antelope Valley 6-044
Arroyo Santa Rosa Valley 4-007
Arroyo Seco Valley 7-037
Avawatz Valley 6-026
Batiquitos Lagoon Valley 9-022
Bear Valley 8-009
Bessemer Valley 7-015
Bicycle Valley 6-025
Big Meadows Valley 8-007
Big Valley (Lake) 5-015
Borrego Valley - Ocotillo Wells 7-024.02
Bristol Valley 7-008
Broadwell Valley 6-032
Buck Ridge Fault Valley 7-054
Butte Valley 1-003
Cadiz Valley 7-007
Cady Fault Area 6-090
Cahuilla Valley 9-006
Calzona Valley 7-041
Campo Valley 9-028
Canebrake Valley 7-046
Carpinteria 3-018
Carrizo Plain 3-019
Carson Valley 6-006
Castac Lake Valley 5-029
Caves Canyon Valley 6-038
Chemehuevi Valley 7-043
Chocolate Valley 7-032
Cholame Valley 3-005
Chuckwalla Valley 7-005
Coachella Valley - Desert Hot Springs 7-021.04
Coachella Valley - Indio 7-021.01
Coachella Valley - Mission Creek 7-021.02
Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass 7-021.04
Coastal Plain of Los Angeles - Central 4-011.04
Coastal Plain of Los Angeles - Hollywood 4-011.02
Coastal Plain of Los Angeles - Santa Monica 4-011.01
Coastal Plain of Los Angeles - West Coast 4-011.03
Coastal Plain of Orange County 8-001
Coastal Plain of San Diego 9-033
Collins Valley 7-055
Conejo 4-010
Copper Mountain Valley 7-011
Corralitos - Pajaro Valley 3-002.01
Cottonwood Valley 9-027
Coyote Lake Valley 6-037
Coyote Wells Valley 7-029
Cronise Valley 6-035
Cuddeback Valley 6-050
Cuyama Valley 3-013
Dale Valley 7-009
Darwin Valley 6-057
Davies Valley 7-061
Deadman Valley - Deadman Lake 7-013.01
Deadman Valley - Surprise Spring 7-013.02
Death Valley 6-018
Deep Springs Valley 6-015
Denning Spring Valley 6-078
Downtown 2-040
East Salton Sea 7-033
Eel River Valley 1-010
El Cajon Valley 9-016
El Mirage Valley 6-043
Elsinore - Bedfored-Coldwater 8-004.02
Elsinore - Elsinore Valley 8-004.01
Escondido Valley 9-009
Fenner Valley 7-002
Fish Lake Valley 6-014
Fremont Valley 6-046
Gilroy-Hollister Valley - Llagas Area 3-003.01
Goldstone Valley 6-048
Goleta 3-016
Harper Valley 6-047
Helendale Fault Valley 7-048
Hemet Lake Valley 8-006
Hidden Valley 4-016
Imperial Valley 7-030
Indian Wells Valley - 6-054
Iron Ridge Area 7-050
Ivanpah Valley 6-030
Jacumba Valley 7-047
Johnson Valley - Soggy Lake 7-018.01
Johnson Valley - Upper Johnson Valley 7-018.02
Joshua Tree 7-062
Kane Wash Area 6-089
Kelso Valley 6-031
Lanfair Valley 7-001
Langford Valley - Irwin 6036.02
Langford Valley - Langford Well Lake 6-036.01
Langford Valley 6-036.02
Las Posas Valley 4-008
Lavic Valley 7-014
Leach Valley 6-027
Lockwood Valley 4-017
Long Valley 6-011
Los Osos Valley - Los Osos 3-008.01
Los Osos Valley - Warden Creek 3-008.02
Lost Horse Valley 7-051
Lower Kingston Valley 6-021
Lower Mojave River Valley 6-040
Lucerne Valley 7-019
Malibu Valley 4-022
Means Valley 7-017
Mesquite Valley 6-029
Middle Amargosa Valley - 6-020
Middle Mojave River Valley 6-041
Mission Valley 9-014
Modoc) 5-004
Morongo Valley 7-020
Morro Valley 3-041
Napa-Sonoma Valley - Napa-Sonoma Lowlands 2-002.03
Needles Valley 7-044
Ocotillo-Clark Valley 7-025
Ogilby Valley 7-035
Ojai Valley 4-002
Orocopia Valley - 7-031
Owens Valley - Fish Slough 6-012.02
Owens Valley 6-012.01
Owl Lake Valley 6-088
Pahrump Valley 6-028
Palo Verde Mesa 7-039
Palo Verde Valley 7-038
Pamo Valley 9-024
Panamint Valley 6-058
Peach Tree Valley 3-032
Petaluma Valley 2-001
Pilot Knob Valley 6-051
Pinto Valley 7-006
Pipes Canyon Fault Valley 7-049
Pittsburgh Plain 2-004
Piute Valley 7-045
Pleasant Valley 4-006
Potrero Valley 9-029
Poway Valley 9-013
Raymond 4-023
Red Pass Valley 6-024
Redding Area - Anderson 5-006.03
Redding Area - Bowman 5-006.01
Redding Area - Enterprise 5-006.04
Redding Area - Millville 5-006.05
Redding Area - South Battle Creek 5-006.06
Rice Valley 7-004
Riggs Valley 6-023
Russell Valley 4-020
Sacramento Valley - Antelope 5-021.54
Sacramento Valley - Bend 5-021.53
Sacramento Valley - Butte 5-021.70
Sacramento Valley - Colusa 5-021.52
Sacramento Valley - Corning 5-021.51
Sacramento Valley - Los Molinos 5-021.56
Sacramento Valley - North American (5-021.64)
Sacramento Valley - North Yuba 5-021.60
Sacramento Valley - Red Bluff 5-021.50
Sacramento Valley - Solano 5-021.66
Sacramento Valley - South American 5-021.65
Sacramento Valley - South Yuba 5-021.61
Sacramento Valley - Sutter 5-021.62
Sacramento Valley - Vina 5-021.57
Sacramento Valley - Wyandotte Creek 5-021.69
Sacramento Valley - Yolo 5021.67
Salinas Valley - 180/400 Foot Aquifer 3-004.01
Salinas Valley - Atascadero Area 3-004.11
Salinas Valley - East Side Aquifer 3-004.02
Salinas Valley - Forebay Aquifer 3-004.04
Salinas Valley - Langley Area 3-004.09
Salinas Valley - Monterey 3-004.10
Salinas Valley - Paso Robles Area 3-004.06
Salinas Valley - Upper Valley Aquifer 3-004.05
Saline Valley 6-017
Salt Wells Valley 6-053
San Antonio Creek Valley 3-014
San Dieguito Creek 9-012
San Elijo Valley 9-023
San Felipe Valley 7-027
San Fernando Valley 4-012
San Gabriel Valley 4-013
San Jacinto 8-005
San Joaquin Valley - Chowchilla 5-022.05
San Joaquin Valley - Cosumnes (5-022.16)
San Joaquin Valley - Delta-Mendota 5-022.07
San Joaquin Valley - East Contra Costa 5-022.19
San Joaquin Valley - Eastern San Joaquin 5-022.01
San Joaquin Valley - Kaweah 5-022.11
San Joaquin Valley - Kern 5-022.14
San Joaquin Valley - Kings 5-022.08
San Joaquin Valley - Madera 5-022.06
San Joaquin Valley - Merced 5-022.04
San Joaquin Valley - Modesto 5-022.02
San Joaquin Valley - Pleasant Valley 5-022.10
San Joaquin Valley - Tracy 5-022.15
San Joaquin Valley - Tulare Lake 5-022.12
San Joaquin Valley - Tule 5-022.13
San Joaquin Valley - Turlock 5-022.03
San Joaquin Valley - Westside 5-022.09
San Joaquin Valley - White Wolf 5-022.18
San Juan Valley 9-001
San Luis Obispo Valley 3-009
San Luis Rey Valley - Lower San Luis Rey Valley 9-007.02
San Luis Rey Valley - Upper San Luis Rey Valley 9-007.01
San Marcos Area 9-032
San Mateo Valley 9-002
San Onofre Valley 9-003
San Pasqual Valley 9-010
Santa Barbara 3-017
Santa Clara River Valley - Fillmore 4-004.05
Santa Clara River Valley - Mound 4-004.03
Santa Clara River Valley - Oxnard 4-004.02
Santa Clara River Valley - Piru 4-004.06
Santa Clara River Valley - Santa Clara River Valley East 4-004.07
Santa Clara River Valley - Santa Paula 4-004.04
Santa Clara Valley - East Bay Plain 2-009.04
Santa Clara Valley - Niles Cone 2-009.01
Santa Clara Valley - San Mateo Plain 2-009.03
Santa Clara Valley - Santa Clara 2-009.02
Santa Cruz Mid-County 3-001
Santa Margarita 3-027
Santa Maria River Valley - Arroyo Grande 3-012.02
Santa Maria River Valley - Santa Maria 3-012.01
Santa Maria River Valley 3-012.02
Santa Maria Valley 9-011
Santa Rosa Valley - Santa Rosa Plain 1-055.01
Santa Ynez River Valley 3-015
Scott River Valley 1-005
Searles Valley 6-052
Seven Oaks Valley 8-008
Shasta Valley 1-004
Sierra Valley 5-012.01
Silver Lake Valley 6-034
Simi Valley 4-009
Soda Lake Valley 6-033
South San Diego River Valley 9-015
Superior Valley 6-049
Temecula Valley 9-005
Terwilliger Valley 7-026
Thousand Oaks Area 4-019
Tule Lake 1-002-01
Twentynine Palms Valley 7-010
Ukiah Valley 1-052
Upper Kingston Valley 6-022
Upper Mojave River Valley 6-042
Upper Ojai Valley 4-001
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Chino 8-002.01
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Cucamonga 8-002.02
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Rialto-Colton 8-002.04
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Riverside-Arlington 8-002.03
Upper Santa Ana Valley - San Bernardino 8-002.06
Upper Santa Ana Valley - San Timoteo 8-002.08
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Temescal 8-002.09
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Yucaipa 8-002.07
Vallecito-Carrizo Valley 7-028
Ventura River Valley - Lower Ventura River 4-003.02
Ventura River Valley - Upper Ventura River 4-003.01
Vidal Valley 7-042
Ward Valley 7-003
Warren Valley 7-012
West Salton Sea
Wingate Valley 6-019
Yuma Valley 7-036

Delta Documents Primers on Cal Water Infrastructure, Water Rights and Government

Filter Results

Type

Topic

Keywords

Publisher

Basin

Hydrological Region

Search for:

Search the California Water Library

Type

Topic

Keywords

Hydrological Region

Basin