California Law at the Intersection of Water Use and Land Planning: A Report for the California Office of Planning and Research

University of California College of the Law, San Francisco (UC Law SF) | May 13th, 2015

There are no laws in California that require coordination between land planners and water regulators. A local planning commission may approve a new subdivision ev

There are no laws in California that require coordination between land planners and water regulators. A local planning commission may approve a new subdivision even though there may not be enough water to supply the new development. Moreover, local water authorities and the Water Resources Control Board are under no obligation to provide water to developers if the developers do not hold title to a valid claim to water rights. The following survey and report represents a first comprehensive attempt to surface laws that lie at the intersection of land management and water regulations, offering several recommendations for ways in which existing laws can be used to facilitate better coordination between land planners and water managers. These recommendations, contained in Chapters IV-VI, suggest: Redefining the “coordination” requirement of the conservation element in general plans to facilitate coordination; Applying the Groundwater Sustainability Management Act’s sustainability goals to facilitate coordination; Utilizing well moratoria to facilitate coordination while limiting unsustainable growth. This report also contains a summary of our methodology in Chapter II, a historical overview of the relationship between land use and water law in California in Chapter III, and a survey of existing laws and constitutional provisions that are relevant to both land use and water management in Chapters VII and VIII. We hope that this report will serve as a useful tool for lawmakers and regulators to help achieve water security and sustainability for future generations.

Case Studies of Natural Shoreline Infrastructure in Coastal California: A Component of Identification of Natural Infrastructure Options for Adapting to Sea Level Rise

Nature Conservancy | November 27th, 2017

Sea level rise and erosion are major threats to California’s coast, requiring solutions to preserve the many benefits a healthy coastline provides: flood protec

Sea level rise and erosion are major threats to California’s coast, requiring solutions to preserve the many benefits a healthy coastline provides: flood protection, recreation, habitat for wildlife, water quality and more. Seawalls and other engineered structures, are commonly installed in order to hold the shoreline in place and hold back the ocean; however, they ultimately make the situation worse in most cases by increasing erosion and thus causing already vulnerable shorelines to shrink more. Natural shoreline infrastructure is an alternative that is more likely to preserve the benefits of coastal ecosystems while also maintaining coastal access. The California coastline is very diverse, and no single solution will address all the chal- lenges anticipated in the future. While there is a continuum of approaches to address sea level rise and coastal erosion— ranging from fully natural approaches that preserve or restore natural systems, hybrid solutions that integrate engineered aspects into restored or created natural features, and fully engineered structures like seawalls and revetments—prop- erty owners and managers don’t typically consider the entire range of options when making coastal management decisions. To address the gap in familiarity with natural infrastructure and the lack of technical guidance to aid decision-makers and engineers in the appropriate application of different strategies for different situations, this report summarizes natural infrastructure projects for a range of settings in coastal California. Each case study covers the background, permitting, planning, implementation, performance, and key lessons learned from each project in order to provide the critical information needed to implement successful adaptation strategies to address coastal issues, and inspire other communities by highlighting the lessons learned.

Changing the course? What's worked, what hasn't and what's next for the SCWP: An assessment of the first three rounds of the Safe Clean Water Program

Los Angeles Waterkeeper (LA Waterkeeper) | February 16th, 2023

In 2018, Los Angeles County voters overwhelmingly approved “Measure W” — a 2.5 cent per square foot parcel tax on impervious surface on all land parcels within the

In 2018, Los Angeles County voters overwhelmingly approved “Measure W” — a 2.5 cent per square foot parcel tax on impervious surface on all land parcels within the LA County Flood Control District to fund multi-benefit stormwater infrastructure. The Safe Clean Water Program (SCWP) was developed to distribute and manage the funds raised, approximately $280M annually. The SCWP operates through three distinct programs: the District Program (10% of funds), the Municipal Program (40% of funds), and the Regional Program (50% of funds). The Regional Program has recently completed its third round of funding awarded through a competitive grant process. This assessment focuses on how the Regional Program is performing in achieving the SCWP’s overarching goals of water quality, water supply, and community investment benefits as provided in the ordinance authorizing this measure for the ballot. It also explores how well the program is meeting its goals around community engagement and support, benefits to disadvantaged communities, and green workforce development. The purpose of this assessment is to help the SCWP’s Regional Oversight Committee (ROC) and ultimately other decision-makers such as the LA County Board of Supervisors better understand what is working well with the program and where improvements could be made as part of the biennial review.

Climate and land change impacts on future managed wetland habitat: a case study from California’s Central Valley

Landscape Ecology (Springer) | January 7th, 2022

Concept California’s Central Valley provides critical habitat for migratory waterbirds, yet only 10% of naturally occurring wetlands remain. Competition for limited wa

Concept California’s Central Valley provides critical habitat for migratory waterbirds, yet only 10% of naturally occurring wetlands remain. Competition for limited water supplies and climate change will impact the long-term viability of these intensively managed habitats. Objectives Forecast the distribution, abundance, and connectivity of surface water and managed wetland habitats, using 5 spatially explicit (270 m2) climate/land use/water prioritization scenarios. Mapping potential future dynamic flooded habitat used by waterbirds and other wetland-dependent wildlife to inform management decisions. Methods We integrated a climate-driven hydrologic water use model with a spatially explicit land change model, to examine stakeholder-driven scenarios of future land change, climate, and water use and their impacts on future habitat availability. Results Declining water availability is the dominant driver of habitat loss across scenarios. The hot/dry scenarios showed the greatest declines in January flooded area by 2101—an important month for overwintering waterbirds. In contrast, higher water supplies in wet climates drive perennial cropland conversion and loss of potential habitat. Potential flooded cropland declined (25 and 33%) under warmer/wetter climate conditions due to this conversion to perennial crops, exposing habitat vulnerability. Conclusion Climate-driven loss of water availability had a greater impact on flooded habitat availability than land-use change. When combined, climate change and the conversion of potentially flooded cropland to perennial cropland will threaten future waterbird habitat particularly in January, the peak of the migratory bird season, even when habitat restoration goals are met. Stakeholder-informed scenario analysis can identify target areas for potential habitat change, vulnerability, and conservation.

Community and Grower Engagement in Multibenefit Land Repurposing

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) | June 10th, 2022

Comparison of potential drinking water source contamination across one hundred U.S. cities

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | December 13th, 2021

Drinking water supplies of cities are exposed to potential contamination arising from land use and other anthropogenic activities in local and distal source watersheds. B

Drinking water supplies of cities are exposed to potential contamination arising from land use and other anthropogenic activities in local and distal source watersheds. Because water quality sampling surveys are often piecemeal, regionally inconsistent, and incomplete with respect to unregulated contaminants, the United States lacks a detailed comparison of potential source water contamination across all of its large cities. Here we combine national scale geospatial datasets with hydrologic simulations to compute two metrics representing potential contamination of water supplies from point and nonpoint sources for over a hundred U.S. cities. We reveal enormous diversity in anthropogenic activities across watersheds with corresponding disparities in the potential contamination of drinking water supplies to cities. Approximately 5% of large cities rely on water that is composed primarily of runoff from non-pristine lands (e.g., agriculture, residential, industrial), while four-fifths of all large cities that withdraw surface water are exposed to treated wastewater in their supplies.

Defining urban resilience: A review

Landscape and Urban Planing (Elsevier) | March 1st, 2016

Fostering resilience in the face of environmental, socioeconomic, and political uncertainty and risk has captured the attention of academics and decision makers across di

Fostering resilience in the face of environmental, socioeconomic, and political uncertainty and risk has captured the attention of academics and decision makers across disciplines, sectors, and scales. Resilience has become an important goal for cities, particularly in the face of climate change. Urban areas house the majority of the world's population, and, in addition to functioning as nodes of resource consumption and as sites for innovation, have become laboratories for resilience, both in theory and in practice. This paper reviews the scholarly literature on urban resilience and concludes that the term has not been well defined. Existing definitions are inconsistent and underdeveloped with respect to incorporation of crucial concepts found in both resilience theory and urban theory. Based on this literature review, and aided by bibliometric analysis, the paper identifies six conceptual tensions fundamental to urban resilience: (1) definition of ‘urban’; (2) understanding of system equilibrium; (3) positive vs. neutral (or negative) conceptualizations of resilience; (4) mechanisms for system change; (5) adaptation versus general adaptability; and (6) timescale of action. To advance this burgeoning field, more conceptual clarity is needed. This paper, therefore, proposes a new definition of urban resilience. This definition takes explicit positions on these tensions, but remains inclusive and flexible enough to enable uptake by, and collaboration among, varying disciplines. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the definition might serve as a boundary object, with the acknowledgement that applying resilience in different contexts requires answering: Resilience for whom and to what? When? Where? And why?

Drought impact on cropland use monitored with AVIRIS imagery in Central Valley, California

Science of the Total Environment (Elsevier) | November 19th, 2022

During 2012–2016 California experienced the longest and most severe drought in the last centuries. This water scarcity led to an increase in non-cultivated croplands du

During 2012–2016 California experienced the longest and most severe drought in the last centuries. This water scarcity led to an increase in non-cultivated croplands during this period. The objective of this study was to quantify agricultural trends in the Central Valley (California) at peak growth from 2013 to 2016 during the drought and in 2017–2018 post-drought. For this purpose, we analysed yearly official harvested area reported at county level for the main crops and compared them to visible-shortwave infrared (VSWIR) spectra acquired by the Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging-Spectrometer (AVIRIS-classic) over 2334 km2 of the Central Valley each year. Multiple Endmember Spectral Mixture Analysis (MESMA) was applied to AVIRIS data to estimate green vegetation (GV), non-photosynthetic vegetation (NPV) and soil fractions in crop fields each year. MESMA and crop reports (R2 = 0.9) showed that soil (i.e.; non-cultivated areas) increased during the summers of the drought; with the smallest GV area in 2015, the second year classified with exceptional drought in this period. According to MESMA, 34 % of the cropland was covered by GV in 2015, and 69.5·104 ha according to the crop reports. MESMA also registered the highest value of soil area in 2015 (48 %). The year with most cultivated area was 2017, the wettest year in the studied period, with 54 % of the croplands covered by GV and 75.2·104 ha. This study verified that the non-cultivated areas increased in the Central Valley during the exceptional drought period and validated the use of AVIRIS imagery to monitor broad-scale cropland use changes in future climatic extreme events.

Effects of Urban Development on Stream Ecosystems in Nine Metropolitan Study Areas Across the United States

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | November 13th, 2012

Urban development is an important agent of environmental change in the United States. The urban footprint on the American landscape has expanded during a century and a ha

Urban development is an important agent of environmental change in the United States. The urban footprint on the American landscape has expanded during a century and a half of almost continuous development. Eighty percent of Americans now live in metropolitan areas, and the advantages and challenges of living in these developed areas—convenience, congestion, employment, pollution—are part of the day-to-day realities of most Americans. Nowhere are the environmental changes associated with urban development more evident than in urban streams. Contaminants, habitat destruction, and increasing streamflow flashiness resulting from urban development have been associated with the disruption of biological communities, particularly the loss of sensitive aquatic species. Every stream is connected downstream to larger water bodies, including rivers, reservoirs, and ultimately coastal waters. Inputs of chemical contaminants or sediments at any point along the stream can cause degradation downstream with adverse effects on biological communities and on economically valuable resources, such as fisheries and tourism. In response to general concerns about the degradation of urban streams, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a national-scale, scientific investigation of the effects of urban development on stream ecosystems. Nine metropolitan study areas of the United States were selected—Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah; Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; Raleigh, North Carolina; Boston, Massachusetts; Denver, Colorado; Dallas, Texas; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The studies were conducted in Salt Lake City, Birmingham, and Boston in 1999–2000; in Atlanta, Raleigh, and Denver in 2002–2003; and in Portland, Dallas, and Milwaukee in 2003–2004. The comprehensive investigation of all nine studies focused on three broad questions of interest to decision makers: 1. What are the primary effects of urban development on stream ecosystems? 2. How do the effects of urban development on stream ecosystems vary regionally across the country? 3. Which urban-related stressors are most closely linked to biological community degradation, and how can multiple stressors be managed to protect stream health as a watershed becomes increasingly urbanized? RELATED DOCUMENT: Strategies for Managing the Effects of Urban Development on Streams

Equity in Stormwater Investments: Measuring Community Engagement and Disadvantaged Community Benefits for Equitable Impact in the Safe Clean Water Program

Publisher not available | August 4th, 2022

The Safe, Clean Water Program (SCWP) reflects the will of the voters of Los Angeles County, who approved Measure W in 2018 by close to 70%. The ballot measure established

The Safe, Clean Water Program (SCWP) reflects the will of the voters of Los Angeles County, who approved Measure W in 2018 by close to 70%. The ballot measure established a perpetual parcel tax “to fund projects and programs to increase stormwater capture and reduce stormwater and urban runoff pollution” in Los Angeles County “to increase water supply, improve water quality, and, where appropriate, provide community enhancements such as the greening of schools, parks, and wetlands, and increased public access to rivers, lakes, and streams.” In an ordinance implementing the Safe Clean Water Program, the county Board of Supervisors included provisions to prioritize equity in implementation and affirmed an intention to address inequity in infrastructure in August 2021. Those provisions gave rise to this report, which provides advice drawn from research and stakeholder engagement to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) for measuring community engagement and Disadvantaged Community Benefits to better achieve the equitable impact sought by the SCWP. As part of a broader SCWP Metrics and Monitoring Study (MMS) commissioned by the LACFCD, we were charged with conducting research, consulting with stakeholders, and giving advice to the SCWP for metrics to measure community engagement and Disadvantaged Community Benefits.