Shop – California Water Library

Page

Showing
11-21 of 61

Per Page

Sort By

California Water Supply And Demand: Technical Report

Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) | February 10th, 2011

Summary

The California Water Supply and Demand Model (CWSD) examines the ways in which California’s water supply and demand are likely to be affected by climate change; its pur

The California Water Supply and Demand Model (CWSD) examines the ways in which California’s water supply and demand are likely to be affected by climate change; its purpose is to serve as a base for quantifying these impacts in economic terms. California’s water future is modeled under conditions of no adaptation to climate change, and under several projected water use adaptation scenarios taken from the literature; climate change adaptation scenarios include water used for energy, the urban or residential sector, and agriculture. The main CWSD compares key categories of water inputs and outputs on a month-by-month basis to capture seasonality in water availability. A supplementary model allows for the main model’s beginning surface reservoir storage to result from water supply and demand interactions over a stylized previous 100 years. Three areas of water use are both especially critical and vulnerable to climatic change: the energy, agriculture, and urban sectors. In the energy module, water demand is a based on different scenarios of coal, nuclear and renewable power use, conservation technology, state population trends, and projected temperatures. In the agriculture module, crop and animal water use by county is a function of projected summer temperatures by county. In the urban module, residential, industrial/commercial, and public water use are based on projected levels of socio-economic growth.

View Document Download Now Email

California's Water – Energy Relationship

California Energy Commission (CEC) | November 1st, 2005

Summary

This is an urgent time of both challenge and opportunity. The primary finding of this paper is that a major portion of the solution is closer coordination between the wat

This is an urgent time of both challenge and opportunity. The primary finding of this paper is that a major portion of the solution is closer coordination between the water and energy sectors. A meaningful solution cannot be reached in the current regulatory environment where water utilities value only the cost of acquisition, conveyance, treatment, and delivery; wastewater utilities value only the cost of collection, treatment, and disposal; electric utilities value only saved electricity; and natural gas utilities value only saved natural gas. The state must both develop and expand best practices and existing programs to realize the substantial incremental benefits of joint water and energy resources and infrastructure management. While many nuances of this complex statewide problem are still unclear, staff’s analysis shows that significant energy benefits can be reaped through the twin goals of the efficient use of water by end users and the efficient use of energy by water systems. It is also clear that not nearly enough has been done to ensure that California’s water supply strategies are synchronized, hand-in-hand, with its energy strategies. Nor has enough been done to forge partnerships between the water and energy sectors so that their natural synergies, joint resources, and assets can be effectively leveraged for the benefit of all Californians. The state has the opportunity now to reap near-term energy benefits by helping California’s water and wastewater utilities become more energy self-sufficient, which will ease pressures on California’s already stressed electric system. By adjusting existing policies, programs, and resources, water and wastewater utilities could be converted from high energy users to net renewable energy producers. California’s water and energy policymakers need to commit today to the joint planning and management of these critical resources. The state’s water plan and resource strategies are being reviewed with all key stakeholders, and implementation plans are already on the drawing table. At the same time, the California Public Utilities Commission has approved substantial utility ratepayer expenditures in energy efficiency programs for the 2006-2008 program cycle. The state must waste no time in taking advantage of these rapidly evolving events. The state can meet energy and demand-reduction goals comparable to those already planned by the state’s investor-owned energy utilities for the 2006-2008 program period by simply recognizing the value of the energy saved for each unit of water saved. If allowed to invest in these cold water energy savings, energy utilities could co-invest in water use efficiency programs, which would in turn supplement water utilities’ efforts to meet as much load growth as possible through water efficiency. Remarkably, staff’s initial assessment indicates that this benefit could be realized at less than half the cost to electric ratepayers of traditional energy efficiency measures. This staff report examines how energy is used – and how it can be saved – in the water use cycle. The strategies and goals for a comprehensive statewide water-energy program would achieve incremental energy benefits for water and energy utilities. The overarching goal of establishing a comprehensive statewide water-energy program would create a dynamic, living process where key stakeholders have incentives to continuously identify and implement strategies optimizing the state’s water and energy resources and assets on an integrated, coordinated, and collaborative basis. This opportunity must not be lost since the need is so great. Because of all these factors, staff recommends that an action-oriented approach structured to achieve near-term results be developed immediately.

View Document Download Now Email

California’s Next Million Acre-Feet: Saving Water, Energy, and Money

Pacific Institute | September 26th, 2010

Summary

A new analysis from the Pacific Institute recommends specific actions that can annually save a million acre-feet of water quickly and at a lower economic and ecological c

A new analysis from the Pacific Institute recommends specific actions that can annually save a million acre-feet of water quickly and at a lower economic and ecological cost than developing new supplies. The assessment notes that new actions are immediately needed to reduce the growing tensions over the state’s water resources and to address California’s persistent water supply challenges. This is a key time for California water: the California Water Bond has been tabled for at least two years and may be scrapped altogether. New reviews from around the state are calling for prompt efforts to use technology, economics, and institutional reform to address the state’s water crisis. All parties seem to agree that the state will need a diverse portfolio of solutions – but it makes the most sense to do the most effective things first. The Pacific Institute’s new report, California’s Next Million Acre-Feet: Saving Water, Energy, and Money, quantifies more than one million acre-feet of water that can be conserved through improved efficiency, with savings coming from the urban and industrial sectors and improvements in agriculture. “There is vast untapped potential to reduce our demand for water without affecting the services and benefits that water provides,” said Heather Cooley, co-director of the Pacific Institute’s Water Program and lead author of the report. “We identified how the next million acre-feet of water can be conserved in California, with approximately 30% of the savings from the urban sector and 70% from the agricultural sector. Both sectors have savings potential far exceeding this amount, and while we could have identified one million acre-feet of water savings annually in either sector alone, we’re showing how all sectors can benefit from these improvements.” In the urban sector, the report identifies water savings from replacing old, inefficient water-using devices with high-efficiency models in our homes and businesses, as well as replacing some lawns with low-water-use plants. In the agricultural sector, best water management practices include weather-based irrigation scheduling, regulated deficit irrigation, and switching from gravity or flood irrigation to sprinkler or drip irrigation systems. The efficiency improvements identified in California’s Next Million Acre-Feet require an upfront investment of less than $1.9 billion, costs that could be borne by a mix of state, federal, and local agencies and individuals – all at a small fraction of the cost of the proposed water bond. The cost of the conserved water is $185 per acre-foot for the agricultural sector and a net savings of $99 per acre-foot for the urban sector, over the lifetime of the efficiency improvement. Conserving water also conserves energy, saves money, and reduces the need for new water and energy projects.

View Document Download Now Email

Carbon Footprint Planning: Quantifying Local and State Mitigation Opportunities for 700 California Cities

Urban Planning (Cogitatio) | April 17th, 2018

Summary

Consumption-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories have emerged to describe full life cycle contributions of households to climate change at country, st

Consumption-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories have emerged to describe full life cycle contributions of households to climate change at country, state and increasingly city scales. Using this approach, how much carbon foot- print abatement potential is within the control of local governments, and which policies hold the most potential to reduce emissions? This study quantifies the potential of local policies and programs to meet aggressive GHG reduction targets using a consumption-based, high geospatial resolution planning model for the state of California. We find that roughly 35% of all carbon footprint abatement potential statewide is from activities at least partially within the control of local governments. The study shows large variation in the size and composition of carbon footprints and abatement opportu- nities by ∼23,000 Census block groups (i.e., neighborhood-scale within cities), 717 cities and 58 counties across the state. These data and companion online tools can help cities better understand priorities to reduce GHGs from a comprehensive, consumption-based perspective, with potential application to the full United States and internationally.

View Document Download Now Email

CE2 Model: Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Urban Water Conservation and Efficiency Measures

Pacific Institute | April 26th, 2012

Summary

Over the past 25 years, water conservation and efficiency improvements have provided real water savings, allowing many agencies to maintain or reduce water use while meet

Over the past 25 years, water conservation and efficiency improvements have provided real water savings, allowing many agencies to maintain or reduce water use while meeting the needs of a growing population and economy. Recent studies indicate that despite the improvements that have already been achieved, significant water conservation potential remains. Indeed, California legislation passed in 2009 requires urban water agencies to reduce per capita water use by 20% by the year 2020. The economics of water conservation and efficiency are key issues. The Pacific Institute has developed the Cost Effectiveness of Water Conservation and Efficiency (CE2) Model to help evaluate the economic desirability of water conservation and efficiency measures and explore how costs and benefits can be shared among customers, water utilities, and other entities (system requirements: PC with Microsoft Excel and Access 2003* or later). The model helps document the costs of starting and running a conservation program and estimate the associated water, energy, and financial savings. It is sufficiently general and flexible to address variations in conservation measures regionally and according to the level of analysis because the model outputs are based on conditions defined by the user. The CE2 Model does not provide “the answer” as to whether a particular measure or suite of measures makes economic sense. Rather, it provides a set of financial metrics that can inform the decision-making process. The CE2 Model can also help water conservation practitioners share information across departments and with other water, wastewater, and energy utilities. The model quickly and easily calculates financial metrics that are meaningful and readily understood by planners and managers. It also provides a common platform through which to discuss the costs and benefits of water conservation and efficiency. This in turn allows utilities to exchange cost experiences and data and learn from one another more easily. The primary audience for the CE2 Model is water utility staff. The model is appropriate for wholesale and retail utilities of all sizes and can be used by agencies that exclusively provide water services, as well as agencies that also provide wastewater and/or energy services. Additionally, it may be of use to consultants, non-governmental organizations, and others interested in water conservation and efficiency and sustainable management of water resources.

View Document Download Now Email

Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Task Force Water Use Best Management Practices Report to the Legislature

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | October 21st, 2013

Summary

This report to Legislature, Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Task Force Water Use Best Management Practices, identifies specific practices to improve water use e

This report to Legislature, Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Task Force Water Use Best Management Practices, identifies specific practices to improve water use efficiency and support California’s water supply sustainability. It is intended to provide the CII sectors with information on water-saving technologies and BMPs applicable in the CII sectors. The report is also intended for use as a resource for: • Existing and new businesses, facilities, and institutions • Developers, consultants, and designers • Water service providers • Planning agencies • Policy makers This two-part document is linked below. The Executive Summary is also linked in the display window. Executive Summary Volume 1 - A Summary Volume 2 - Technical Information

View Document Download Now Email

Comparison of U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Reclamation Water-Use Reporting in the Colorado River Basin

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | September 2nd, 2019

Summary

The use of water in the United States is arguably one of the most important factors determining water availability at any specific place and time. Numerous local, State,

The use of water in the United States is arguably one of the most important factors determining water availability at any specific place and time. Numerous local, State, and Federal entities develop, compile, and report water-use data, which can lead to confusing or conflicting information. This report was authored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to compare and contrast the two agencies’ water-use information programs in the Colorado River Basin. The report also describes the legal drivers for each program, clarifies confusing terminol- ogy, compares the methods used, and contrasts the information reported by each agency. This detailed comparison demon- strates that these two Federal agencies have different missions, different programmatic drivers, and different user communi- ties, all of which lead to different approaches to water-use data collection, analysis, and reporting. This report highlights those differences and explains why the USGS and Reclamation programs exist and how the data serve different user communities. Even though the two water-use programs are different by design and purpose, the program comparison presented in this report has identified opportunities for closer coordination and sharing of information between the USGS and Reclamation, as well as program components where agency collaboration can improve water-use estimate methodologies. This comparison effort emphasizes that it is incumbent upon each agency to clearly define the meaning of the terms used and the appropri- ate application of the reported information to avoid confusion or the accidental misuse of the information. An additional benefit of this comparison effort is the formation of a joint USGS/ Reclamation water-use team that will continue to investigate opportunities to expand and coordinate future water-use data compilation and reporting.

View Document Download Now Email

Considering Water Use Efficiency for the Environmental Sector

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | April 29th, 2010

Summary

The goal of this report is to provide a starting point from which the water planning community can move toward improving the allocation of water within the environmental

The goal of this report is to provide a starting point from which the water planning community can move toward improving the allocation of water within the environmental sector. To facilitate that process, this report presents: 1. A discussion that highlights the water community’s points of agreement on the concept of analyzing the application of water to the environment 2. A term, Managed Environmental Water Use Efficiency (MEWUE), to reflect that concept, and a definition of that term 3. A survey of existing methods that could be used to develop MEWUE 4. Suggestions about how to proceed with implementing MEWUE Based on our analysis, we found that there was genuine interest in understanding and improving how water is allocated to the environment. The idea of maximizing environmental benefits for a given amount of allocated water is a unifying thread among stakeholder interests. We focus on this idea throughout the report as the central concept that MEWUE is intended to achieve. We propose a new term to reflect the stated concerns of stakeholders that other terms, Environmental Water Use Efficiency and Ecosystem Restoration Water Use Efficiency, did not fully address. We propose Managed to indicate that MEWUE does not evaluate the environment’s use of water per se but rather the effectiveness of water in controlled systems. We propose Environmental to reflect the range of “uses” of water in the ecosystem, including ecosystem maintenance, restoration, and water quality. Lastly, we support the use of the word Efficiency because efficiency communicates the intent of maximizing benefit for a given amount of water, providing a basis for comparison of the benefits obtainable from different uses of that water. MEWUE: a mechanism to analyze alternative uses of managed environmental water to determine which allocation of a given amount of water will maximize environmental benefits, and a means to improve decision-making over time. We address the issue of why having an explicit decision-making mechanism is essential. It is hard to allay the fears that some have of incorrectly measuring environmental benefits. However, it is even more difficult to claim that decisions based on implicit measures and beliefs are better for the environment than those based on some imperfect but explicit consideration of environmental benefits.

View Document Download Now Email

Consumption Change Detection for Urban Planning: Monitoring and Segmenting Water Customers During Drought

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | March 11th, 2020

Summary

Demand management is a powerful way for water utilities to address the challenges of population growth and climate change. Although active conservation efforts have been

Demand management is a powerful way for water utilities to address the challenges of population growth and climate change. Although active conservation efforts have been studied extensively, recent evidence suggests households respond to many external events beyond a utility's control, including political responses to extreme climatic episodes and corresponding mass media coverage. Despite their importance, these external factors are difficult to analyze in a controlled setting, and few tools exist to evaluate their influence on customers. Here, we present a consumption change detection (CCD) method that offers new insights into how climate‐related mass media and policy events affect conservation by pinpointing the timing and magnitude of customer‐level water use shifts. We use CCD to monitor and segment the responses of residential water customers to policy and media events in Costa Mesa, California, during the severe 2012–2016 drought. Our results show consumption reductions among 75% of customers. Of these, 80% reduced water use before mandatory restrictions were imposed, coincident with intensifying state policy responses and spikes in media coverage that affected all customer types during 2014. Analysis of standardized drought consumption trajectories indicates that 16% of conserving customers increased consumption in 2015–2016. Conservation and rebound were both more likely among affluent and educated customers, suggesting that CCD can identify engaged and informed water savers who make suitable targets for water‐efficient retrofit incentive schemes. This study demonstrates CCD's potential as a novel demand analysis tool in an interconnected world where external social, political, and climatic stressors can exert an important influence on customer behavior.

View Document Download Now Email

Economic Efficiency of Water Use and Allocation in California: A Scoping-Level Analysis

Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force (Delta Vision) | July 1st, 2008

Summary

This report identifies key issues related to the economic efficiency of water development, allocation and use in California and discusses general policy changes that migh

This report identifies key issues related to the economic efficiency of water development, allocation and use in California and discusses general policy changes that might improve economic efficiency. Policy options focus on water pricing, water transfers, water use efficiency (i.e, conservation) and State development and enforcement policies. Analysis is provided at a scoping level of detail. Some important empirical issues that weigh on the relative merits of potential policy changes are not addressed. Efficiency of water use has never been more important in California. There is a need to save water and money. California has recently made progress in improved economic efficiency of water use, but major issues remain. Also, recent changes in the amount and location of supplies suggest a review of allocation efficiency. There are two important efficiency topics that this paper does not address in detail. First, economic efficiency of water use for ecosystem purposes is a viable concept, but it is difficult to apply given the state of Delta ecosystem science and the current range of possible futures. We can not quantify the relationship between water and ecosystem functions and values. Therefore, our ability to prescribe efficiency changes related to Delta water for ecosystem purposes is limited. Second, this paper also does not address the economic efficiency of major new storage or Delta conveyance facilities. The efficiency of specific water supply projects including regional or local conjunctive use and groundwater storage projects are also not considered. These are being addressed in different forums. This report focuses on other types of uses, allocations and development of water. A variety of potential actions and policies that might improve efficiency in the allocation, use and development of water resources are discussed. Some of the efficiency issues are • Are water allocations under California’s water rights systems efficient? • If there are inefficiencies, could an effective water transfer market increase efficiency? • Are there barriers or constraints to water transfer markets that should be removed? • How could water pricing be changed to increase efficiency? • How could California encourage efficiency in the use and development of water through incentives such as grants and loans, and through enforcement? In all cases, our findings represent potential improvements from the perspective of economic efficiency alone. There are usually other, non-economic considerations which would play into the larger question of the laws and policies that might be changed.

View Document Download Now Email

← Prev

Page : 2

Type

Book/Textbook (2)
California Water Plan (1)
Case study (2)
Conference proceedings (1)
Fact sheet (1)
Guidance Document (2)
Handbook/Guide (4)
Issue Paper (1)
Journal Article (7)
Model (3)
NGO Position Paper (2)
Plan (3)
Policy (1)
Report (34)
Technical Report (1)

Topic

Agriculture (4)
Climate Change (7)
Desalination (2)
Drought & Hydrology (3)
Ecosystem & Species Management (3)
Fisheries (1)
Infrastructure (2)
Integrated Regional Water Management (1)
Landscape Reform (2)
Modeling (4)
People & Water (1)
Planning & Management (27)
Policy (1)
Pollutants (1)
Recycled Water (6)
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (1)
Salinity (1)
Storage (1)
Transfers & Markets (1)
Uncategorized (1)
Water & Energy (4)
Water Quality (2)
Water Quality Monitoring (1)
Water Rights, Water Law (2)
Water Supply (7)
Water Use & Efficiency (41)

Keywords

agriculture (2)
agriculture water use and efficiency (9)
allocations (1)
best management practices (BMPs) (2)
California Water Plan (3)
Central Valley (1)
Central Valley Project (CVP) (1)
climate change (6)
Colorado River (1)
desalination (1)
direct potable reuse (1)
disadvantaged communities (DACs) (1)
drinking water (1)
drought (3)
economic analysis (2)
ecosystem management (4)
fisheries (1)
funding (1)
human right to water (1)
infrastructure (2)
irrigation (1)
land use (5)
mitigation (1)
modeling (5)
monitoring (1)
native fish (1)
outreach and engagement (1)
planning and management (22)
reasonable use doctrine (1)
recycled water (8)
salinity (1)
stormwater (1)
urban water conservation (23)
wastewater (3)
water and energy (4)
water budget (2)
water pricing (3)
water project operations (1)
water quality (2)
water supply (7)
water transfers (1)
water use efficiency (61)

Publisher

American Geophysical Union (AGU) (2)
American Water Works Association (AWWA) (1)
Annual Review of Environment and Resources (Annual Reviews) (1)
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (10)
California Energy Commission (CEC) (1)
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (2)
Congressional Research Service (CRS) (1)
David Zetland (1)
Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force (Delta Vision) (1)
Environmental Research Letters (IOP) (1)
Environmental Water Caucus (1)
Local Government Commission (1)
Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) (2)
Pacific Institute (22)
PLOS (1)
Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) (2)
Santa Clara Valley Water District (1)
Science of the Total Environment (Elsevier) (1)
State of California (2)
Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) (1)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (1)
University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) (1)
Urban Planning (Cogitatio) (1)

Basin

Hydrological Region

Central Coast (5)
Colorado River (8)
Lower Basin States and Mexico - Colorado River (3)
National (4)
North Coast (5)
North Lahontan (5)
Sacramento River (7)
San Francisco Bay (8)
San Joaquin River (6)
South Coast (8)
South Lahontan (5)
Tulare Lake (6)
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