Financing Delta Improvements and Environmental Mitigation

California Research Bureau (CRB) | September 1st, 2008

Resolution of the Delta’s water supply, water quality, and fish problems may involve building various structures, possibly including gates, pumps, canals, levees, and d

Resolution of the Delta’s water supply, water quality, and fish problems may involve building various structures, possibly including gates, pumps, canals, levees, and dams, and undertaking landscaping rearrangements to improve habitat for several species of flora and fauna. Resolution also involves changing water flow regimes in ways that would make more or less water, but probably less, available for human uses. This work and these changes will cost serious money. Cost estimates for many of these actions have not yet been developed. This paper explores approaches to financing these “improvements” and “mitigations.” While a little abstract, this is abstraction that matters. It will determine from whose pockets a good deal of money will come. California has a long history of financing water projects. The first section of this paper reviews this history, in hopes of identifying water-financing principles that might be adapted to Delta improvements and mitigation. Some deep-seated controversies about how Delta improvements should be financed have roots in this history, and it may be helpful to point them out. A core idea in California’s approach to financing water projects is that beneficiaries should pay for them. Decades ago, this was a straightforward proposition – people or water districts should pay for the necessary dams, canals, and pumps and the costs of operating them in proportion to the amount of water they received. In the current age of rising environmental sensitivity, it is a little muddier. An alternative formulation that applies, at least crudely, to housing developments and highway projects, is that project proponents should pay to mitigate at least some of the environmental harm that their project is likely to cause. The second section of this paper explores this controversial subject. It seems unlikely that any consensus can be reached about how to finance facilities in the Delta without reaching some agreement about how to deal with this matter. This paper was first issued in July, 2008. This version contains a few clarifications made in response to the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s reviewers. The author is grateful for their suggestions.

Fish Collections and Secondary Louver Efficiency at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility: October 1993 to September 1995

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | May 29th, 1998

Friant Division Central Valley Project

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | January 4th, 1994

Water is life the cliché goes, but in California, the reality is water is power. The Eureka State is blessed with warm days and productive soil, but deprived of enough w

Water is life the cliché goes, but in California, the reality is water is power. The Eureka State is blessed with warm days and productive soil, but deprived of enough water to go around. The pursuit of the power conferred by the water flowing in its rivers, and bubbling up from underground, is a much more complicated part of the Central Valley Project (CVP) than authorization, design, and construction. An anomaly in the CVP's labyrinthine history, the Friant Division developed along lines similar to other Reclamation projects in the West. One of three original segments of the CVP, the Friant Division, is separate, simple in design, but has seen it share of the same kinds of controversy plaguing the rest of the project. In spite of the disputes Friant generated, of the top five agricultural producing counties in the nation, three -- Fresno, Tulare and Kern -- are watered by Friant Division facilities. The clear sky, fertile land, and dry air of the southern San Joaquin Valley provide the backdrop where great promises have been met and modest hopes destroyed all in order to create "the richest agricultural region in the history of the world."

Friant Water Authority vs. Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainibilty Agency

Superior Court of California, County of Tulare | February 15th, 2024

Friant-Kern Canal Middle Reach Capacity Correction

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | January 25th, 2022

Ground-water Hydrology of the Hollister and San Juan Valleys 1913-68

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | August 31st, 1972

The Hollister and San Juan Valleys are within the Gilroy-Hollister ground-water basin. That part of the ground-water basin underlying the valleys consists of thre

The Hollister and San Juan Valleys are within the Gilroy-Hollister ground-water basin. That part of the ground-water basin underlying the valleys consists of three subbasins each of which contains two or more ground-water subunits. The subbasin and subunit boundaries are formed by known or postulated faults, folded sedimentary rocks, and igneous rocks. The principal water-bearing units are lenticular beds of sand and gravel interbedded with clay, silt, sand, and gravel, or their locally consolidated equivalents, which range from Pliocene to Holocene in age. Ground water occurs mainly under artesian or semiartesian conditions but also under unconfined (water-table) conditions in areas adjacent to most surface streams and, locally, under perched or semiperched conditions. In 1968 the depth to water in wells ranged from approximately 20 feet above land surface to more than 200 feet below land surface. Water-level differences in wells across the boundaries of adjacent subunits ranged from about 10 to more than 100 feet. Withdrawals of groundwater for irrigation began in 1878. Since that time water levels in wells have declined more than 180 feet in the Hoilister Valley and more than 100 feet in the San Juan Valley. Serious declines in water levels probably did not begin, however, in most of the area until after 1945. Since 1945 large cones of depression have formed in each of the major subbasins. The centers of the cones are approximately one-half mile northeast of Hoilister in the Hollister subbasin, 1% miles northwest of Hollister in the Gilroy-Bolsa subbasin, and one-half mile east of San Juan Bautista in the San Juan subbasin. Ground-water movement beneath both valleys is now toward and into the cones. Ground water in the eastern part of the Hollister Valley locally contains objectionable concentrations of boron and chloride. However, available data indicate that significant changes in the distribution patterns of these constituents have not occurred since 1939.

History of Legislation and Policy Formation of the Central Valley Project

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) | March 15th, 1946

History of the Delta Division, Central Valley Project

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | October 1st, 1994

The Delta Division of the Central Valley Project (CVP) acts as the hub around which the CVP revolves. The Delta Division contains the facilities that transfer water from

The Delta Division of the Central Valley Project (CVP) acts as the hub around which the CVP revolves. The Delta Division contains the facilities that transfer water from the Sacramento River, to bolster irrigation supplies to thirsty lands formerly dependent on water from the San Joaquin River. In time, the Delta Division became the hub for controversy revolving around the Central Valley Project. This document recounts the history of the Delta Division.  It was produced by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Independent Review Panel (IRP) Report for the 2014 Long-Term Operations Biological Opinions (LOBO) Annual Science Review

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | December 1st, 2014

Independent Review Panel (IRP) Report for the 2015 Long-Term Operations Biological Opinions (LOBO) Annual Science Review

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | December 1st, 2015

This report presents findings and opinions of the Independent Review Panel (IRP) assembled by the Delta Science Program to inform the National Marine Fisheries Service (N

This report presents findings and opinions of the Independent Review Panel (IRP) assembled by the Delta Science Program to inform the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) as to the efficacy of water operations and certain regulatory actions prescribed by their respective Long-term Operations Biological Opinions’ (LOBO) Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Actions (RPAs) as applied from October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015 (Water Year 2015).  This year’s annual review focused primarily on: (1) Shasta Reservoir and Sacramento River temperature monitoring, modeling, and management, (2) the River Assessment for Forecasting Temperature (RAFT) decision support tool (model), (3) an Enhanced Particle Tracking Model (E-PTM), and (4) a USFWS report on past, present, and future approaches to incidental take of Delta Smelt.  After reviewing a required set of written documents (Appendix 1), the IRP convened at a public workshop in Sacramento, CA on 5-6 November 2015. The first day of the 2-day workshop included agency presentations and provided a forum for the IRP to interact and consider information presented on water operations, temperature modeling, monitoring and RPA Actions as implemented in yet another critically dry 2015 water year. On the second day, the IRP deliberated in a private session beginning at 9:00 a.m. in order to prepare and present their initial findings at the public workshop at 2:00 p.m., after which there was an opportunity for agency representatives, members of the public, and the IRP members to comment and otherwise exchange impressions and information. Subsequent IRP communication and deliberations were conducted via email and conference calls in the course of drafting this final report. Click here for federal agency response letter