California regulation of agricultural runoff

American Bar Association (ABA) | November 1st, 2017

Agriculture in California is a multibillion dollar industry that produces more than half of the nation’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables. But this comes at a cost. Agricul

Agriculture in California is a multibillion dollar industry that produces more than half of the nation’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables. But this comes at a cost. Agriculture is the primary source of water pollution, with irrigation and rainfall sweeping excess fertilizers and pesticides off the fields into adjoining waters and, over time, leaching into groundwater. As a result, waterbodies—spanning roughly 8,000 miles of rivers and streams and 300,000 acres of lakes, bays, and wetlands—are impaired.

California Salmon Strategy for a Hotter, Drier Future: Restoring Aquatic Ecosystems in the Age of Climate Change

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | January 20th, 2024

The infrastructure built generations ago in California continues to limit salmon migration, and some dams that remain on the landscape are well beyond their useful life.

The infrastructure built generations ago in California continues to limit salmon migration, and some dams that remain on the landscape are well beyond their useful life. In the Central Valley, large dams were built starting in the early 1900s on almost all major rivers. Those dams now block salmon access to over 90 percent of their historical spawning and rearing habitat higher in mountain streams.

California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | August 6th, 2010

The first edition of this manual, written by Gary Flosi and Forrest Reynolds, and published in 1991, formally synthesized and described the Department of Fish and Game's

The first edition of this manual, written by Gary Flosi and Forrest Reynolds, and published in 1991, formally synthesized and described the Department of Fish and Game's approach and technical methods for anadromous salmonid habitat restoration. From 1991 through 1994 the first edition was broadly distributed and used as a "standard methods" text by many habitat restoration and resource inventory workers. As a result, many suggestions for improvement of the manual were received by the authors. The second edition, by Flosi and Reynolds was supported by a team that included the authors of this third edition, and was published in October of 1994. The second edition included a number of revisions: 1) a reorganization of sections for project planning and project implementation; 2) the just then recently revised stream channel classification system developed by David Rosgen; 3) a new monitoring and evaluation section; 4) a listing of all databases used for resource inventory and analysis as presented in the manual; 5) a protocol for a large woody debris inventory; 6) a description of required environmental review processes and permits; 7) an expanded and updated listing of sensitive species; and 8) numerous editorial changes to text and data forms. The third edition, like the second, incorporates changes recently developed in the practice of stream habitat inventory and restoration. The authorship list has changed with this edition to more accurately reflect the contributions of the writing team members. The manual is presented in binder form in this edition to more easily and economically incorporate future additions and developments as they evolve. This fourth edition incorporates all changes, corrections, and revisions of this manual up to July 2010. The manual continues in binder form in this edition to easily and economically incorporate future additions and developments as they evolve. The authors anticipate the continued widespread distribution and use of this manual will promote the implementation of the restoration techniques. Readers should also be aware that computer data entry and data summary programs are available upon request for all data collection protocols presented in this manual. Updates to this manual are available on line at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Resources/HabitatManual.asp.

California Simulation of Evapotranspiration of Applied Water and Agricultural Energy Use in California

Journal of Integrative Agriculture (Elsevier) | August 5th, 2013

The California Simulation of Evapotranspiration of Applied Water (Cal-SIMETAW) model is a new tool developed by the California Department of Water Resources and t

The California Simulation of Evapotranspiration of Applied Water (Cal-SIMETAW) model is a new tool developed by the California Department of Water Resources and the University of California, Davis to perform daily soil water balance and determine crop evapotranspiration (ETc), evapotranspiration of applied water (ETaw), and applied water (AW) for use in California water resources planning. ETaw is a seasonal estimate of the water needed to irrigate a crop assuming 100% irrigation efficiency. The model accounts for soils, crop coefficients, rooting depths, seepage, etc. that influence crop water balance. It provides spatial soil and climate information and it uses historical crop and land-use category information to provide seasonal water balance estimates by combinations of detailed analysis unit and county (DAU/County) over California. The result is a large data base of ETc and ETaw that will be used to update information in the new California Water Plan (CWP). The application uses the daily climate data, i.e., maximum (Tx) and minimum (Tn) temperature and precipitation (Pcp), which were derived from monthly USDA-NRCS PRISM data (PRISM Group 2011) and daily US National Climate Data Center (NCDC) climate station data to cover California on a 4 km×4 km change grid spacing. The application uses daily weather data to determine reference evapotranspiration (ETo), using the Hargreaves-Samani (HS) equation (Hargreaves and Samani 1982, 1985). Because the HS equation is based on temperature only, ETo from the HS equation were compared with CIMIS ETo at the same locations using available CIMIS data to determine correction factors to estimate CIMIS ETo from the HS ETo to account for spatial climate differences. Cal-SIMETAW also employs near real-time reference evapotranspiration (ETo) information from Spatial CIMIS, which is a model that combines weather station data and remote sensing to provide a grid of ETo information. A second database containing the available soil water holding capacity and soil depth information for all of California was also developed from the USDA-NRCS SSURGO database. The Cal-SIMETAW program also has the ability to generate daily weather data from monthly mean values for use in studying climate change scenarios and their possible impacts on water demand in the state. The key objective of this project is to improve the accuracy of water use estimates for the California Water Plan (CWP), which provides a comprehensive report on water supply, demand, and management in California. In this paper, we will discuss the model and how it determines ETaw for use in water resources planning.

California Single Family Water Use Efficiency Study

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | April 20th, 2011

The California Single Family Home Water Use Efficiency Study includes data from many traditional sources such as billing data, survey data, weather data and aerial photo

The California Single Family Home Water Use Efficiency Study includes data from many traditional sources such as billing data, survey data, weather data and aerial photo information to analyze the water use patterns of a sample of over 700 single-family homes across ten water agencies throughout the State of California. Detailed flow trace data was obtained from portable data loggers which were attached to the water meters of each of the study homes. These flow traces provided flow readings at ten second intervals from the magnetic pickup, which generate 80-100 pulses per gallon. These highly detailed flow data make it possible to identify individual water use events and to categorize them by their end-use. The flow trace data tell not just how many gallons per day the home used, but how many gallons per day were used for individual end uses such as toilet flushing, clothes washing, dishwashers, showers, irrigation, faucets and leaks. Detailed use information can be pulled from the trace, giving for example, a count of toilet flushes and toilet flush volumes during a logging period. Researchers used flow trace data to determine levels of daily use in the homes and the efficiency of that use. Although the flow trace technique contains marginal error, such as from the mis-categorization of some events, it provides information on end uses-that is not available from any other source. This report summarizes the results of the study which began in 2005 and was completed in 2010. Water use patterns found during the 2007 logging period were analyzed to show how much potential remains for conservation savings from both indoor and outdoor efforts. 

California State Auditor report on California Water Fix planning efforts

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | October 4th, 2017

As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the California State Auditor presents this audit report concerning the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) manag

As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the California State Auditor presents this audit report concerning the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) management of the planning efforts for the California WaterFix Project (WaterFix). WaterFix is intended to address environmental and water supply reliability issues related to pumping water from the Sacramento?San Joaquin Delta (the Delta). Planning began in 2006 on the development of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), which consisted of several measures or activities for restoring the Delta and improving water reliability. Subsequently, in 2008 DWR initiated the Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program (conservation and conveyance program) to evaluate how to implement the BDCP and alternatives to it, including evaluating the environmental impacts and completing preliminary engineering work. Through the evaluation effort, DWR identified one of the alternatives—WaterFix—as its preferred approach. This report concludes that the planning phase experienced significant cost increases and schedule delays because of the scale and unexpected complexity of the project. For example, costs of the conservation and conveyance program’s efforts to evaluate and plan for the potential implementation of the BDCP and its alternatives, which eventually included WaterFix, increased significantly. As of June 2017, the planning costs had reached $280 million. We also found that DWR did not follow state law when it replaced the program manager for the conservation and conveyance program. Specifically, DWR selected the Hallmark Group (Hallmark) to provide program management services without advertising a request for qualifications, and DWR could not demonstrate that it ever evaluated Hallmark’s qualifications for this role. The cost of DWR’s current contract with Hallmark has tripled from $4.1 million to $13.8 million.  Additionally, DWR has not completed either an economic or financial analysis to demonstrate the financial viability of WaterFix. Finally, it has not fully implemented a governance structure for the design and construction phase, and has not maintained important program management documents for WaterFix.

California State Water Project 2006 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 20th, 2007

The State Water Project (SWP) provides drinking water to approximately two-thirds of California’s population and is the nation’s largest state-built water development

The State Water Project (SWP) provides drinking water to approximately two-thirds of California’s population and is the nation’s largest state-built water development project. The SWP extends from the mountains of Plumas County in the Feather River watershed to Lake Perris in Riverside County. It is linked with the Central Valley Project (CVP) that extends from southern Oregon in the Sacramento River watershed to the Mendota Pool. The watershed of the SWP is vast; encompassing the 27,000-square-mile Sacramento River and 13,000-square-mile San Joaquin River watersheds and at times, the 13,000-square-mile Tulare Basin watershed. The contaminant sources in the SWP watersheds have been well documented in the three previous sanitary surveys. The California Department of Health Services (CDHS) requested that the 2006 Update address the Jones Tract levee failure and emergency response procedures, efforts to coordinate pathogen monitoring in response to the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), and a review of significant changes to the watersheds and their impacts on water quality.   A Technical Review Committee (TRC) was formed to guide development of the scope of work and provide technical expertise and review of the draft report. In addition to addressing the issues raised by CDHS, the TRC determined that the 2006 Update should focus on evaluating the sources of the water quality problems that the SWP Contractors face and recommending actions that the SWP Contractors can take that will lead to improvements in water quality over the next five years. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 REGULATORY SETTING CHAPTER 3 WATER QUALITY IN THE WATERSHEDS AND THE STATE WATER PROJECT CHAPTER 4 KEY CONCERNS IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY WATERSHED AND THE DELTA CHAPTER 5 KEY CONCERNS WITH STATE WATER PROJECT FACILITIES CHAPTER 6 INCIDENTS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEASURES CHAPTER 7 CONCERNS WITH SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

California State Water Project: Past, Present, Future

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 1st, 2006

California State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Update, Volume II: Appendices

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | September 28th, 2015

Appendices A Required Report Elements and Compliance B California State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Revision Summary C Species of Greatest Conservation Need D Ranked Li

Appendices A Required Report Elements and Compliance B California State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Revision Summary C Species of Greatest Conservation Need D Ranked Lists of Vegetation Communities (Macrogroups) by Ecoregion E Conservation Strategies for All Macrogroups in California, Freshwater Aquatic Species Assemblages, Marine Ecosystems, and Anadromous Fishes F Invasive Species in California G Climate Adaptation Strategies Cross-Reference Guide H Offshore Islands I California State Wildlife Action Plan Implementation Evaluation Report 2005 – 2014 J Public Scoping Meeting Materials

California State Wildlife Action Plan: 2015 Update: Volume 1

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | September 28th, 2015

SWAP 2015 provides an ecosystem approach for conserving California’s fish and wildlife resources by identifying strategies intended to improve conditions of Species of

SWAP 2015 provides an ecosystem approach for conserving California’s fish and wildlife resources by identifying strategies intended to improve conditions of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) and the habitats upon which they depend (see Figure 1 of the Executive Summary). CDFW designed SWAP 2015 to guide resource managers, conservation partners, and the public in how they can directly or indirectly participate in conserving California’s precious natural heritage. This section provides an overview of the structure of SWAP 2015 to help readers navigate through the document and find information. SWAP 2015 is organized as follows: Executive Summary provides a summary of: the vision for wildlife conservation in California; statewide goals; the process used to develop conservation strategies based on an ecosystem approach; conservation targets and strategies for seven provinces and anadromous fish; statewide summary; plans for integration and implementation; and process for adaptive management and monitoring. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to SWAP 2015. The challenge of sustaining biodiversity, a summary of CDFW responsibility, and the vision for California wildlife conservation are described. Chapter 1 also explains the requirements for updating SWAP, summarizes major changes since the original 2005 SWAP, and describes the analytical approach used in the 2015 update. Chapter 2 describes California’s natural diversity, identifies SGCN and the criteria used to evaluate species and habitat conditions, and addresses major pressures and stresses currently affecting the SGCN and their habitats. Chapter 3 describes the existing conservation approaches in the state, including the major regulations protecting natural resources, CDFW planning tools, and major conservation programs. Chapter 4 presents the statewide goals of SWAP 2015 and broad, state-level conservation strategies that will be implemented to achieve the desired conservation outcomes. Chapter 5 is divided into seven sections that describe for each geographic province the conservation targets, SGCN and other focal species, KEAs, stresses, pressures, and conservation strategies, including goals and objectives for the provinces. Chapter 6 focuses on conservation strategies developed for anadromous fish in California. Chapter 7 describes how SWAP 2015 will be integrated with other programs and coordinated with partners for the implementation, including through companion plans. Chapter 8 describes the monitoring plan for the conservation strategies, including the mandate for CDFW to use monitoring and adaptive management. It also presents a summary of the effectiveness evaluation of how SWAP 2005 was implemented. The chapter describes how the recommendations from the SWAP 2005 evaluation have been integrated into SWAP 2015. Rationales for selecting conservation strategies presented in SWAP 2015 and a framework for monitoring the effectiveness of the strategies are also described. Chapter 9 provides the list of preparers of SWAP 2015. Chapter 10 provides bibliographic references used in each chapter. Chapter 11 provides a glossary of major terms used in SWAP 2015. Several appendices accompany SWAP 2015 to provide more detailed information and extensive tables that support the document. Database files created during the development of SWAP 2015 to compile and evaluate ecological information and to create strategies can be accessed at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/SWAP/.