Policy

Search Results

Browse All Documents

A Compilation of Water Quality Goals
$0.00
Add to Downloads
A Compilation of Water Quality Goals
State Water Resources Control Board | January 1, 2016...
Summary
This State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) staff report, A Compilation of Water Quality Goals, supersedes the April 2011 edition and...
This State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) staff report, A Compilation of Water Quality Goals, supersedes the April 2011 edition and all prior editions and updates published by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Earlier editions and updates should be discarded, as they contain outdated information.

The text of this edition has been updated mainly to reflect the transfer of California’s Drinking Water Program from the Department of Public Health (CDPH) to the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) at the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). Information about this transfer is online at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/programs/DW_PreJuly2014.shtml. Cited examples and hyperlinks to reference materials have also been updated.

Water Quality Goals includes an online searchable database of water quality based numeric thresholds available at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_goals/. The database contains up-to-date numeric thresholds from a variety of sources for over 860 chemical constituents and water quality parameters, including:
- California and Federal drinking water standards (MCLs)
- California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
- California State Notification and Response Levels for drinking water
  Health Advisories, Water Quality Advisories, and Drinking Water Advisories
- Cancer Risk Estimates
- Health-based criteria from USEPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
- California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels
- California Toxics Rule Criteria to protect human health and aquatic life
- California Ocean Plan Water Quality Objectives
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Recommended Water Quality Criteria to Protect Human Health and Aquatic Life
- Agricultural use protective thresholds
- Taste and odor based criteria
The narrative Selecting Water Quality Goals contains information to help users to understand California’s water quality standards adopted to protect the beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater resources, available criteria and guidance for evaluating water quality, and to help users select defensible numeric assessment thresholds based on applicable water quality standards. To use this information correctly, it is necessary to read Selecting Water Quality Goals carefully before using numeric thresholds from the database.

Water Quality Goals is a technical report prepared by staff of the State Water Board. It is intended to help identify and assess potential water quality concerns. This report is an informational tool only and does not establish State Water Board policy or regulation. The information presented in this report is not binding on any person or entity, nor does it represent final action of the State Water Board or any Regional Water Board. This report is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation in the State of California. The overseeing regulatory authority may decide to use the information provided herein, or to act at a variance with the information, based on analysis of site and case-specific circumstances.
View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Applying the connectivity approach: Water and food supply projects in California that connect, link, and engage
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Applying the connectivity approach: Water and food supply projects in California that connect, link, and engage
California Roundtable on Water and Food Supply | April 11, 2014...
Summary
In delving into the connectivity concept and approach, members of the California Roundtable on Water and Food Supply (CRWFS) felt that it was...
In delving into the connectivity concept and approach, members of the California Roundtable on Water and Food Supply (CRWFS) felt that it was very important to look to existing and emerging projects that were already embracing the concepts being discussed. Projects were selected to highlight the three high priority areas for effecting change: connected thinking, institutional linkages, and public engagement.

The five examples included in this booklet as case assessments illustrate several ways the connectivity approach is currently being applied throughout California. The assessments are intended to generate ideas for applying the guiding principles of the connectivity approach and the positive impacts that emerge from them. The assessments are not meant to serve as an evaluation of the merit of the projects.

This booklet is intended to accompany From Crisis to Connectivity: Renewed Thinking About Managing California’s Water and Food Supply, which more fully describes the connectivity approach illustrated here.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Cal-EPA: An Umbrella for the Environment
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Cal-EPA: An Umbrella for the Environment
Little Hoover Commission | June 1, 1991...
Summary
Cal-EPA was created to consolidate environmental programs and concentrate on vigorous enforcement of environmental regulations. The report discusses risk assessment activities, uniform permit...
Cal-EPA was created to consolidate environmental programs and concentrate on vigorous enforcement of environmental regulations. The report discusses risk assessment activities, uniform permit processes, public involvement, and the advantages and consequences of bringing all environmental entities into Cal-EPA. In addition, the Commission addresses the short- and long-term costs and savings. The Cal-EPA report has seven findings and seven recommendations.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
CalFed: Still Imperiled, Still Important
$0.00
Add to Downloads

CalFed: Still Imperiled, Still Important
Little Hoover Commission | November 17, 2005...
Summary
The Little Hoover Commission on Thursday recommended overhauling how state and federal agencies are managing the massive, multibillion-dollar effort to restore the Bay-Delta...
The Little Hoover Commission on Thursday recommended overhauling how state and federal agencies are managing the massive, multibillion-dollar effort to restore the Bay-Delta estuary. The Commission’s review affirmed the importance of the CALFED Bay-Delta program and the need to fundamentally change how the multi-agency effort is governed.

The Commission recommended dissolving the Bay-Delta Authority, which was created in 2003, and creating a stronger management structure that could be held accountable for achieving the program’s four objectives: improving water supply reliability, levee stability, water quality and the ecosystem of the vast, yet fragile Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

The Delta supplies water to 22 million Californians, irrigates 5 million acres of farmland and is home to 750 wildlife species. Through CALFED, 24 state and federal agencies were committed to working cooperatively and relying on science and public involvement to improve conditions in the Bay-Delta. But after five years and $3 billion, the Governor and the Legislature have questioned the progress and the ability of the Bay-Delta Authority to lead the effort.

The Commission’s review was requested by Governor Schwarzenegger as part of an effort to revitalize CALFED. The Commission concluded that the current structure diffuses authority and fragments responsibility and lacks the focused leadership needed to get adversarial stakeholders and reluctant government agencies to cooperate.

“Because of a faulty design, the Bay-Delta Authority cannot effectively coordinate activities, push agencies to perform, or provide rigorous oversight. It is unable to control or cajole,” said Michael E. Alpert, chairman of the Little Hoover Commission.

The Commission found that growing disagreements about CALFED’s mission and the role of the Bay-Delta Authority are jeopardizing the critical water supply and restoration effort. The Commission recommended recreating a policy group of public officials, co-chaired by the U.S. Secretary of Interior and the California Secretary of Resources. It recommended deploying performance management techniques to improve progress toward specific goals. And it recommended refinements to the program’s use of a lead scientist and an independent science board to improve decision-making.

“The most important factor in CALFED’s success will be leadership,” Alpert said. “One lesson of the last five years is that CALFED will require an amount of political capital and leadership that can only flow from the institution of the Governor.” The Commission’s report includes recommendations for reforming the governance structure of the CALFED program.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
California Water Action Plan (2014)
$0.00
Add to Downloads

California Water Action Plan (2014)
State of California | January 1, 2014...
Summary
California has seen many flood events, including the most recent flood of 1995 when 48 of 58 counties declared a state of emergency....
California has seen many flood events, including the most recent flood of 1995 when 48 of 58 counties declared a state of emergency. After two years of dry weather and shrinking reservoir supplies, we are reminded once again that nothing focuses Californians’ attention on our limited water resources like drought.

There is broad agreement that the state’s water management system is currently unable to satisfactorily meet both ecological and human needs, too exposed to wet and dry climate cycles and natural disasters, and inadequate to handle the additional pressures of future population growth and climate change. Solutions are complex and expensive, and they require the cooperation and sustained commitment of all Californians working together. To be sustainable, solutions must strike a balance between the need to provide for public health and safety (e.g., safe drinking water, clean rivers and beaches, flood protection), protect the environment, and support a stable California economy. This action plan lays out our challenges, our goals and decisive actions needed now to put California’s water resources on a safer, more sustainable path. While this plan commits the state to moving forward, it also serves to recognize that state government cannot do this alone. Collaboration between federal, state, local and tribal governments, in coordination with our partners in a wide range of industry, government and nongovernmental organizations is not only important—it is essential. The input and contributions received from all of these partners throughout the drafting of this action plan have resulted in a comprehensive and inclusive plan.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
California Water Action Plan (2016 Update)
$0.00
Add to Downloads

California Water Action Plan (2016 Update)
State of California | January 1, 2016...
Summary
California is currently experiencing one of the worst droughts in memory. The 2016 water year is off to a good start, but with...
California is currently experiencing one of the worst droughts in memory. The 2016 water year is off to a good start, but with four consecutive dry years and the record low snowpack of 2015, drought conditions may continue for a fifth straight year.

Flooding in the midst of drought is likely, given strong El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean. Nothing focuses Californians’ attention on our water resources like the extremes of flood and drought.

There is broad agreement that the state’s water management system is currently unable to satisfactorily meet both ecological and human needs, too exposed to wet and dry climate cycles and natural disasters, and inadequate to handle the additional pressures of future population growth and climate change. Solutions are complex and expensive, and they require the cooperation and sustained commitment of all Californians working together. To be sustainable, solutions must strike a balance between the need to provide for public health and safety (e.g., safe drinking water, clean rivers and beaches, flood protection), protect the environment, and support a stable California economy.

This action plan lays out our challenges, our goals and decisive actions needed now to put California’s water resources on a safer, more sustainable path. While this plan commits the state to moving forward, it also serves to recognize that state government cannot do this alone. Collaboration between federal, state, local and tribal governments, in coordination with our partners in a wide range of industry, government and nongovernmental organizations is not only important—it is essential. The input and contributions received from all of these partners throughout the drafting of this action plan have resulted in a comprehensive and inclusive plan.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
California’s Water: An LAO Primer
$0.00
Add to Downloads

California’s Water: An LAO Primer
Legislative Analyst's Office | October 22, 2008...
Summary
California’s water delivery system is facing a series of challenges due in part to a combination of increasingly variable weather conditions, legal requirements,...
California’s water delivery system is facing a series of challenges due in part to a combination of increasingly variable weather conditions, legal requirements, and system operation and conveyance constraints. These challenges affect water availability, reliability, and delivery. Recent public and private efforts have sought ways to address these challenges. These measures include proposals to increase water through groundwater storage, surface storage, infrastructure changes, and system operation improvements, among others.

This report provides, through a “quick reference” document relying heavily on charts to present information, a snapshot of water in California, including: (1) An Overview of California’s Water Governance; (2) Water Supply, Source, and Delivery; (3) How Do We Finance Water Projects? (4) What Drives the Cost of Water?, and (5) Issues for Legislative Consideration

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Clean Water, Clean Beaches Water Quality Funding Measure*

Add to Downloads

Clean Water, Clean Beaches Water Quality Funding Measure*
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Los Angeles County Flood Control District | September 21, 2012...
Summary
The Problem: Stormwater and runoff rushes down the street, picking up trash and toxic pollutants. On a rainy day, over 10 billion gallons...

The Problem: Stormwater and runoff rushes down the street, picking up trash and toxic pollutants. On a rainy day, over 10 billion gallons of contaminated stormwater flows directly — untreated — into rivers, creeks, lakes and our bay and coastal waters. Polluted stormwater and urban runoff include toxins and pathogens that can affect our health, drinking water supplies, and the health of marine life. Contaminants include: Industrial solvents, paints and chemicals; heavy metals like lead, mercury, chromium and arsenic; infection-causing bacteria; pesticides and fertilizers; and trash like plastics, cigarette butts, candy wrappers and syringes.

*The proposed solution, a parcel tax to fund stormwater remediation and capture projects, failed before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in 2013.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Clearer Structure, Cleaner Water: Improving Performance and Outcomes at the State Water Boards
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Clearer Structure, Cleaner Water: Improving Performance and Outcomes at the State Water Boards
Little Hoover Commission | January 1, 2009...
Summary
The Little Hoover Commission on Thursday urged the governor and the Legislature to reform the State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional...
The Little Hoover Commission on Thursday urged the governor and the Legislature to reform the State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards by expanding the state board to nine members, with five members representing statewide interests and four drawn on a rotating basis from the nine regional board chairpersons, whose positions would become full-time. In addition, the Commission called for a revamped appeals process; to improve the use of data and science in water quality regulatory processes; and urged the water boards to focus on new ways to solve modern water quality problems and set priorities.

In its report, Clearer Structure, Cleaner Water: Improving Performance and Outcomes at the State Water Boards, the Commission also recommends refocusing both the state board and regional boards on policy-making and updating basin plans. During its study, the Commission found that the water boards face increasingly complex water quality problems, caused in part by hard-to-regulate sources such as urban and agricultural runoff. The Commission also found that a decentralized governance structure, with nine regional water quality boards operating with distinct policies and processes, hinders accountability and transparency. The result is a system that has lost the confidence of most stakeholders. To restore accountability and increase focus on clean-water outcomes, the Commission recommends strengthening the relationship between the state and regional boards.

“The governance structure for water quality regulation in California is 40 years old and is ill-prepared to handle modern problems,” Little Hoover Commission Chairman Daniel Hancock said. “Major reform is needed to help protect and improve water quality, which is a key to the state’s future.”

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Colorado River Water: Challenges for California
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Colorado River Water: Challenges for California
Legislative Analyst's Office | October 16, 1997...
Summary
The Secretary of the Interior has directed California to come up with a plan to live within its entitlement of 4.4 million acre-feet of...
The Secretary of the Interior has directed California to come up with a plan to live within its entitlement of 4.4 million acre-feet of water per year. We provide findings and recommendations regarding this directive.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Department of Fish and Wildlife Scientific Integrity Policy
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Department of Fish and Wildlife Scientific Integrity Policy
Department of Fish and Wildlife | June 15, 2017...
Summary
In order to guide the scientific work by the Department and pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 715(d), the Department adopts this...
In order to guide the scientific work by the Department and pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 715(d), the Department adopts this scientific integrity policy, to ensure integrity and public confidence in our scientific work.

This Scientific Integrity Policy (Policy) affirms the standards for high quality and ethical scientific inquiry within the Department. Given the vital role of science in the management of natural resources, the Department endeavors to maintain and strengthen its commitment to scientific information that is developed and used according to the highest professional standards. These efforts are essential to maintaining the confidence of the public and other stakeholders, and to enhance the reputation of the Department’s scientific programs, policies and staff. Furthermore, the Department is committed to providing an environment that encourages and supports the conduct, communication, and transparency of excellent science. In support of the above, this Policy is to be considered as the collective guiding principles for all scientific endeavors within the Department.

The purposes of this Policy are:

To foster the development and use of high quality scientific work that is used to inform policy and management within the Department as well as decisions of the Fish and Game Commission.

To ensure that the public and decision makers have access to the scientific methodology and analyses behind the Department’s policy positions.

This Policy is intended to provide overarching guidance through the standards and protocols listed below. Guidance documents may be added, changed or removed from the list by the Director (or designee), as needed to remain current and relevant.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy
Federal Register | December 27, 2016...
Summary
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), announce the final Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compensatory Mitigation Policy. The new...
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), announce the final Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compensatory Mitigation Policy. The new policy steps down and implements recent Executive Office, Department of the Interior, and Service mitigation policies that reflect a shift from project-by-project to landscape-scale approaches to planning and implementing compensatory mitigation.

The new policy is established to improve consistency and effectiveness in the use of compensatory mitigation as recommended or required under the ESA. The ESA Compensatory Mitigation Policy covers permittee-responsible mitigation, conservation banking, in-lieu fee programs, and other third-party mitigation mechanisms, and stresses the need to hold all compensatory mitigation mechanisms to equivalent and effective standards.

DATES: This policy is effective on December 27, 2016.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Endangered Species Act (ESA): The Exemption Process
$0.00
Add to Downloads
Endangered Species Act (ESA): The Exemption Process
Congressional Research Service | January 27, 2017...
Summary
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is designed to protect species from extinction, but it includes an exemption process for those unusual cases where...
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is designed to protect species from extinction, but it includes an exemption process for those unusual cases where the public benefit from an action is determined to outweigh the harm to the species. This process was created by a 1978 amendment to the ESA, but it is rarely used. This report will discuss the exemption process for an agency action, with examples from past controversies, and its potential for application to actions that may affect current controversies, such as water supply.

The ESA mandates listing and protecting species that are endangered or threatened with extinction. Listing a species limits activities that could affect that species and provides penalties for taking individuals of that species. The ESA also requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (together, the Services) to determine whether a federal action may jeopardize the continued existence of a species or harm its critical habitat. The consultation process may lead to an opinion by one of the Services that the action will jeopardize listed species or harm their critical habitats unless certain reasonable and prudent alternatives are included in the action.

Rarely, the federal action agency may hold that those alternatives are inconsistent with the agency action. In other extremely rare cases, the Services may find that no alternatives are available that would allow the project to proceed and still prevent jeopardy.

In either case, the following are the categories of potential applicants that can apply for an exemption for a federal action despite its effects on listed species or their critical habitat:
- the federal action agency interested in proceeding with the action,
- an applicant for a federal license or permit whose application was denied primarily because of the prohibitions of ESA requiring that federal agency actions avoid jeopardy to threatened or endangered species or harm to their critical habitats, or
- the governor of the state where the action was to have occurred.
An exemption application is considered by a specially convened committee which may exempt the federal agency’s action from the prohibitions of the ESA. The exemption process allows major economic factors to be judged to outweigh the ESA’s mandate to recover a species when the federal action is found to be in the public interest and is nationally or regionally significant.

The exemption process has been invoked with a dam on the Tellico River (TN), a water project in the Platt River (WY and NE), and timber sales (OR). In three other instances, the process was begun but was aborted before a decision was reached. In addition, there has been interest over the years in invoking the process in light of controversies over management of federal and state water resource projects in California, although no application has ever been filed. When a project achieves such levels of controversy, Congress is sometimes asked to intervene in the outcome, as it did in the case of the Tellico Dam and an endangered fish in the late 1970s.
View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Environmental Justice Program Implementation for Lahontan Region
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Environmental Justice Program Implementation for Lahontan Region
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board | January 30, 2015...
Summary
The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan Water Board) reviewed how environmental justice (EJ) is conducted in the region and examined new...
The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan Water Board) reviewed how environmental justice (EJ) is conducted in the region and examined new ways to improve our efforts to benefit the disadvantaged communities in our region. The challenges faced by disadvantaged communities (DACs) in the Lahontan region are unique and often different than other DACs in more urban regions. This report provides an assessment of existing efforts to help DACs and catalogs EJ concerns. In addition, the report includes recommendations to enhance DACs participation in the regulatory process, expand access to funding and technical assistance, and improve water quality and drinking water.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management
Congressional Research Service | February 9, 2009...
Summary
The federal government owns about 650 million acres (29%) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four agencies administer...
The federal government owns about 650 million acres (29%) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four agencies administer 617.5 million acres of the federal land: the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, all in the Department of the Interior. Most of these lands are in the West, including Alaska. They generate revenues for the U.S. Treasury, some of which are shared with states and localities. The agencies receive funding through the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws, as well as in various trust funds and special accounts.

The lands administered by the four agencies are managed for a variety of purposes, primarily related to preservation, recreation, and development of natural resources. Yet each of these agencies has distinct responsibilities for the lands and resources it administers. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 255.8 million acres and is responsible for 700 million acres of subsurface mineral resources. The BLM has a multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate that supports a variety of uses and programs, including energy development, recreation, grazing and wild horses and burros, and conservation. The Forest Service (FS) manages 192.8 million acres also for multiple uses and sustained yields of various products and services, including timber harvesting, recreation, grazing, watershed protection, and fish and wildlife habitats. Most of the lands are designated national forests, but there are national grasslands and other designations.

Wildfire protection is an increasingly important activity for both agencies. The BLM and FS have several authorities to acquire and dispose of lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages 90.8 million acres of federal land, primarily to conserve and protect animals and plants. The National Wildlife Refuge System includes wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas, and wildlife coordination units. Units can be created by an act of Congress or executive order, and the FWS also may acquire lands for migratory birds. The National Park Service (NPS) manages 78.1 million acres of federal land to conserve lands and resources and make them available for public use. Activities that harvest or remove resources generally are prohibited. The National Park System has diverse units ranging from historical structures to cultural and natural areas. Units are created by an act of Congress, but the President may proclaim national monuments.

There also are three special management systems that include lands from more than one agency. The National Wilderness Preservation System consists of 107.6 million acres of protected wilderness areas designated by Congress. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System contains 11,944 miles of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers, primarily designated by Congress and managed to preserve their free-flowing condition. The National Trails System contains four classes of trails managed to provide recreation and access to outdoor areas and historic resources.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Five Decades of Magical Thinking: How California?s Water Policy is Founded on a Bankrupt 53-year-old Fantasy
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Five Decades of Magical Thinking: How California?s Water Policy is Founded on a Bankrupt 53-year-old Fantasy
California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) | May 5, 2012...
Summary
Recent revelations confirm that California?s water policy is founded on a decades-old water deficit, one that will only be compounded by Jerry Brown?s...
Recent revelations confirm that California?s water policy is founded on a decades-old water deficit, one that will only be compounded by Jerry Brown?s Twin Tunnels project—a boondoggle scheme that would attempt to meet unsustainable contractual obligations by draining the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta of fresh water. The real issue here is not about how water is conveyed; it?s about whether there is enough water for more conveyance or storage.

When California officials built the State Water Project in 1960, they knew it would run out of water by 1981. To make up the shortfall, the state overappropriated water from the Delta. Operation of the Twin Tunnels is predicated on 1960 water availability estimates of anticipated diversions from north state rivers. These diversions from the Middle Fork Eel, the Mad and Van Duzen Rivers did not occur due to their ultimate state and federal designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
From crisis to connectivity: Renewed thinking about managing California’s water & food supply
$0.00
Add to Downloads

From crisis to connectivity: Renewed thinking about managing California’s water & food supply
California Roundtable on Water and Food Supply | April 14, 2014...
Summary
Modern water management has largely focused on the near-term objectives of a particular user group, be it agriculture, urban, or environment. Over time,...
Modern water management has largely focused on the near-term objectives of a particular user group, be it agriculture, urban, or environment. Over time, competing demands for our finite water resource has led to intractable water conflicts and a water infrastructure that is managed by a highly complex and fragmented network of local, state, and federal institutions. These institutional and water infrastructures abound with missing, broken, or dysfunctional connections between agricultural, urban, and environmental water users, creating negative impacts for all.

Addressing these challenges requires a new and strategic approach that is based in understanding the whole system. Fortunately, a shift toward a whole-systems approach is already developing within a number of disciplines that inform water resource management, food supply systems, and environmental stewardship.

In this report, From Crisis to Connectivity: Renewed Thinking about Managing California’s Water and Food Supply, the California Roundtable on Water and Food Supply (CRWFS) builds on this shift and identifies the concepts of connectivity and connected benefits:

» Connectivity defines the relationships that link the individual parts of a system to form a whole. It recognizes that the actions of one component within a system have an impact, both on the other components of that same system, and upon other, linked systems. The connectivity approach uses this understanding to better align the interactions between human systems (i.e., engineered resource systems, cultural norms, and institutions) and ecosystems (i.e., climatic, chemical and biological systems, and natural resources). This approach proposes that human systems are a central subsystem of the larger ecosystems, rather than systems that exist apart from and only linked to ecosystems. The goal of this alignment is to more effectively design for, and simultaneously achieve, benefits for agricultural and urban users, while ensuring environmental restoration, protection, and stewardship.

» The concept of connected benefits refers to achieving simultaneous benefits across all major water users. The idea of connected benefits builds on the positive historical trend from single to dual and multiple benefits that evolved as a way to respond to California’s increasing water management challenges.

Based on our assessment of current needs and the patterns of disconnects, we have identified three initial high-priority areas in which we believe the connectivity approach can effect significant change in California’s food and water systems. Each high-priority area has several principles to help guide assessment of water and food issues, as well as design and implementation of solutions.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Healthy, Fair, and Profitable: A Win-Win Pesticide Policy
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Healthy, Fair, and Profitable: A Win-Win Pesticide Policy
Pacific Institute | January 1, 2002...
Summary
A new report released by the Pacific Institute and the California Green Scissors project makes the case for changing the way pesticides are regulated in...
A new report released by the Pacific Institute and the California Green Scissors project makes the case for changing the way pesticides are regulated in California. According to the report, if California significantly increased its funding for sustainable agriculture — instead of just spending money to regulate pesticide usage — we could aid California farmers, improve the public health and save millions of dollars in associated costs.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Implementing a Public Goods Charge for Water
$0.00
Add to Downloads
Implementing a Public Goods Charge for Water
California Public Utilities Commission | July 12, 2010...
Summary
Our client asked for recommendations on how to implement a public goods charge (PGC) on water, as per the “Water Energy” section of...
Our client asked for recommendations on how to implement a public goods charge (PGC) on water, as per the “Water Energy” section of the Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) Scoping Plan.

Before considering “how,” we considered whether a public goods charge for water is the right tool. The problem we wanted to address is the negative externalities of high water consumption, including greenhouse gas emissions from the energy used to pump, transport, treat, and heat water. We gave serious consideration to two alternate strategies but ultimately decided the public goods charge for water is the best tool.

We recommend a public goods charge for water because:
- A public goods charge for water creates a price signal for water conservation.
- A public goods charge for water would provide a stable, sustainable funding mechanism to support the full list of conservation and efficiency activities specified in Assembly Bill 32.
- The dual energy and water conservation programs specified in AB 32, which could not be fully funded through the other mechanisms we considered, will be effective to both mitigate and adapt to climate change.
- Our proposed implementation strategy will help institutionalize regional water agencies, which are necessary for the state’s long?term water?planning effectiveness.
We then make specific recommendations about the design of the public goods charge:
- We recommend passing state legislation requiring all water providers to assess volumetric surcharges on each water bill where metered, or by alternate means in the short?term for areas not metered.
- We recommend that the funds be managed by regional joint power authorities to implement Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs), which must institutionalize their operating structure before this can be put in place. This will provide the necessary regional organization for effective project choices, and will reduce the number of water agencies that need oversight from thousands to 50.
- We recommend that the Department of Water Resources (DWR), which already has jurisdiction over the IRWMPS, provide direction and oversight to ensure that specified state goals are met and that funds are well?managed, with assistance from the WETCAT members.
- We recommend that the fees initially be set to raise $680 Million per year. That level of funding can be used to meet the water supply targets of Senate Bill X7?7, and to exceed the greenhouse gas emissions goals of Assembly Bill 32. We recommend that the legislation be structured with maximum flexibility to allow for future rate changes.
View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Natural Resources Policy: Management, Institutions, and Issues
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Natural Resources Policy: Management, Institutions, and Issues
Congressional Research Service | January 17, 2007...
Summary
Natural resources management remains a significant issue for the federal government. Growing demands on the nation’s resources and interest in their protection and...
Natural resources management remains a significant issue for the federal government. Growing demands on the nation’s resources and interest in their protection and allocation among multiple uses have increased the complexity of management. The federal role in defining policy and institutional context shapes the combination of supported uses and protection measures.

Certain themes are common to federal resource issues. Many conflicts center on balancing traditional versus alternative uses and protection programs, managing to produce national or local benefits, and supporting current or future resource consumption. Other challenges involve the effect of federal resource management on private lands, fees for using federal resources, and financing of management efforts. Interagency conflicts and overlaps and the coordination of federal, state, and local efforts also are common implementation problems.

For many reasons, Congress often confronts resource issues based on the natural resource in question—lands and related resources, oceans and coasts, species and ecosystems, or water.

Federal land issues include land ownership and management, prioritization of uses, designation of special areas, and fee collection and disbursement. Energy production and recreation on federal lands remain controversial. Indian land issues include energy rights-of-way across tribal lands and treaty rights. Ocean topics encompass broad policy questions, such as whether to respond to recommendations by two commissions for more coordinated ocean policies and institutions. More specific multi-use management challenges range from fisheries, marine mammal, and coastal zone management, to adherence to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Species management and ecosystem protection topics include federal protection and habitat designations for threatened and endangered species, prevention and response to invasive species, protection of international species, wetlands protection, and large-scale ecosystem restoration. Increased competition for water has fostered interest in the federal role in water resources, particularly in relation to water supply in western states and multi-use river management. Other water topics are dam and levee safety and security, and transboundary water resources management.

Natural resource science and management contributes to understanding and mitigating the nation’s natural hazard risks. Science also is instrumental in defining the uncertainty and potential extent and impact of climate change and weather on resource conditions. Often natural resource management is intertwined with other topics of broad public concern, such as environmental protection, energy, and agricultural policy.

The 110th Congress may pursue natural resources topics in the context of these other policy areas as well as through authorizations, appropriations, and oversight related to specific natural resources issues.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details