Federal Investments for the California Bay-Delta Region

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) | February 5th, 2014

The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta) region of California is an ecosystem of national significance. It is also the hub of the nation’s largest

The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta) region of California is an ecosystem of national significance. It is also the hub of the nation’s largest water delivery system—infrastructure that is the foundation for economic activity in the agricultural, industrial, and recreational sectors of the economy, and provides drinking water to a population of over 25 million Californians. This document is intended to provide an overview of the federal land and water programs in and around the Bay-Delta region, their purpose, options for future programs or actions, and an overview of the actions in which agencies are engaged already. Successful long term management of water resources and the environment to achieve the co-equal goals of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and overall Delta sustainability requires continued improvement in managing California’s finite water supply. Contents I. Introduction II. Bay Delta-Big Picture: A Holistic Approach • State and Federal Integrated Water Management • Reducing Water Demand • Increasing Water Reliability and Supply • Improve Operational Efficiency and Transfers/Exchanges • Potential Federal Water and Ecosystem Management Actions III. Role of the Federal agencies • Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Environmental Protection Agency • Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Army Corps of Engineers • Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service U.S. Forest Service Rural Development Farm Services Agency Agriculture Research Service IV. Conclusion

Final Environmental Assessment Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Management Measures for Fisheries Managed under the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | March 1st, 2018

Final Environmental Impact Statement: Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project Central Valley Project, California

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | November 15th, 2024

The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 2021 Endangered Species Act R

The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 2021 Endangered Species Act Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation on the Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP). This EIS is meant to inform the public and decision makers on potential federal actions by examining a range of reasonable alternatives and the potential effect on the environment. Reclamation manages the CVP. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) manages the SWP. Collectively, the operation of the CVP and SWP provides flood control and navigation; delivers water to 30 million people; supports 4 million acres of agriculture; maintains 19 wildlife refuges on the Pacific Flyway; protects numerous iconic and endemic species such as Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, and smelt; generates 4.5 million megawatt hours of electricity; maintains water quality for beneficial uses in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta); and supports recreation throughout Northern California. 

Financial Statement Analysis of CVP Contractors

Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force (Delta Vision) | July 20th, 2008

This report provides an analysis of the condensed financial statements of the 10 largest Central Valley Project (CVP) irrigation contractors in the San Joaquin Valley (Va

This report provides an analysis of the condensed financial statements of the 10 largest Central Valley Project (CVP) irrigation contractors in the San Joaquin Valley (Valley). The 10 were selected because of their size measured by CVP water deliveries, relative to both aggregate CVP deliveries in the Valley and for all of California. The report includes, for those contractors, a summary of those financial statements for eight years, respective net capital repayment obligations, and acre-feet (AF) of water delivered. This is the third of several written reports which ENTRIX will complete relative to CVP Financing and Repayment Issues. Subsequent reports will include an analysis and discussion of the generation and distribution of hydroelectric power from CVP facilities and a comprehensive document summarizing revised forms of all reports submitted.

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.