A Practitioner’s Guide to Instream Flow Transactions in California

American Rivers | March 1st, 2016

The purpose of this guide is to help water right holders –and those assisting them – understand their options for keeping water instream in California. Th

The purpose of this guide is to help water right holders –and those assisting them – understand their options for keeping water instream in California. This guide briefly describes some of the most common types of instream flow transactions (i.e., methods for restoring flow for environmental purposes), and discusses in detail how to navigate the process of completing an instream flow dedication by changing a water right, as permitted by Water Code Section 1707. The intended audience for this document includes both water rights holders and practitioners, such as staff for land trusts, water trusts, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs), and other organizations. This guide focuses on instream dedications via the change petition process administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). Other publications – for example, the Trust for Public Land’s Water Acquisition Handbook (2003) – provide a more general overview of acquiring water for environmental purposes in California. This guide will provide a description of the change petition process, and offer advice on how to navigate, troubleshoot, and work in partnership with the State Water Board and other natural resource agencies to complete an instream flow dedication.

A Review of the Use of Science and Adaptive Management in California's Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) | January 1st, 2011

The San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary is a large, complex estuarine ecosystem in California. It has been substantially altered by dikes, levees, channelization, pumps,

The San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary is a large, complex estuarine ecosystem in California. It has been substantially altered by dikes, levees, channelization, pumps, human development, introduced species, dams on its tributary streams and contaminants. The Delta supplies water from the state's wetter northern regions to the drier southern regions and also serves as habitat for many species, some of which are threatened and endangered. The restoration of water exacerbated tensions over water allocation in recent years, and have led to various attempts to develop comprehensive plans to provide reliable water supplies and to protect the ecosystem. One of these plans is the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The report, A Review of the Use of Science and Adaptive Management in California's Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan, determines that the plan is incomplete in a number of important areas and takes this opportunity to identify key scientific and structural gaps that, if addressed, could lead to a more successful and comprehensive final BDCP. The plan is missing the type of structure usually associated with current planning methods in which the goals and objectives are specified, alternative measure for achieving the objectives are introduced and analyzed, and a course of action in identified based on analytical optimization of economic, social, and environmental factors. Yet the panel underscores the importance of a credible and a robust BDCP in addressing the various water management problems that beset the Delta. A stronger, more complete, and more scientifically credible BDCP that effectively integrates and utilizes science could indeed pave the way toward the next generation of solutions to California's chronic water problems.

A Salton Sea Chronology (Prehistory-2015)

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | January 14th, 2016

A Sustainable Water Plan for California

Environmental Water Caucus | September 9th, 2015

California’s drought is dire, and has focused legislative and public attention on the enormity of the state’s water problems. As noted in earlier Environmental Water

California’s drought is dire, and has focused legislative and public attention on the enormity of the state’s water problems. As noted in earlier Environmental Water Caucus (EWC) reports, California already was in a state of crisis prior to the current drought. Four years of minimal precipitation have only worsened our situation. Our most pressing problems include: the over allocation of surface water by a factor of at least five, leading to supply unreliability for many users and what is referred to as “paper water;” degraded ecosystems and fisheries; and overexploitation of groundwater supplies. All these issues are exacerbated by ongoing climate change and population growth. The current drought has caused significant new legislation and rules for the state’s water supplies. These are positive developments, and could lead to new approaches for water use; however, too many of these “solutions” are predicated on the false assumption that current drought conditions are temporary. Thirty percent of recent years can be classified as drought years, and multiple drought years are common. According to DWR, 40 of the last 100 years have been drought or multiple drought years. We must consider our water in new ways. We must acknowledge that California is a drought-prone state, that water is and will be limited, and that every citizen, farmer and commercial enterprise must consume water responsibly, rationally, and in line with available supplies. Unfortunately, many of the plans and actions proposed by our public agencies are based on a fantasy of ever-increasing supply. They demonstrate a bizarre and potentially catastrophic unwillingness to align demand and water contracts with actual supplies and a total disregard for economically disadvantaged communities, fish, and wildlife. Further, state officials are exploiting the current drought to justify a tired and bankrupt ideology that promotes more dams, tunnels, and infrastructure as a solution to water shortfalls. Most egregiously, they avoid any objective analysis of the true costs and benefits of additional surface storage or the proposed “Twin Tunnels” trans-Delta project. The Governor’s Water Action Plan and the recently authorized Water Bond continue the destructive and ultimately unsustainable momentum toward more surface storage and delivery infrastructure while not creating any new water supplies. We must recognize that the state’s largest water user – irrigated agriculture – uses 80% of the state’s developed water supply and contributes less than 2% to the states’ economy and payroll, and adjust water practices and priorities accordingly. The continuous planting of permanent crops south of the Delta, where water supply is not reliable and water rights are junior, does not meet the “reasonable use” criteria called for in the California Constitution. Most of the state’s plans will not reduce water demand or increase supplies. Rather, they pointedly ignore two practices that will augment supplies dramatically: water conservation and recycling. Further, following any brief respite to the drought, there is the omnipresent danger that the state will revert to the “endless supply” mindset that has characterized California water policy for decades. Since 2009 the Environmental Water Caucus has proposed an approach to our limited water supplies that is efficient, cost-effective and equitable. It will carry us sustainably into the future, and it addresses the deficiencies described above. Unlike our state bureaucracies, we are not simply trying to squeak through the drought; we are advocating for a wholly different management regime. The EWC plan was proposed prior to the current drought, but it addresses the extant crisis and any future period characterized by water shortages. As stressful as it is for ratepayers, farmers and businesses, the current drought enables reform. More to the point, it demands it. Our public officials must recognize this opportunity, and seize it.

A Synthesis of Aquatic Science for Management of Lakes Mead and Mohave

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | January 29th, 2013

Lakes Mead and Mohave, which are the centerpieces of Lake Mead National Recreation Area, provide many significant benefits that have made the modern development of the So

Lakes Mead and Mohave, which are the centerpieces of Lake Mead National Recreation Area, provide many significant benefits that have made the modern development of the Southwestern United States possible. Lake Mead is the largest reservoir by volume in the nation and it supplies critical storage of water supplies for more than 25 million people in three Western States (California, Arizona, and Nevada). Storage within Lake Mead supplies drinking water and the hydropower to provide electricity for major cities including Las Vegas, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Tucson, and San Diego, and irrigation of more than 2.5 million acres of croplands. Lake Mead is arguably the most important reservoir in the nation because of its size and the services it delivers to the Western United States. This Circular includes seven chapters. Chapter 1 provides a short summary of the overall findings and management implications for Lakes Mead and Mohave that can be used to guide the reader through the rest of the Circular. Chapter 2 introduces the environmental setting and characteristics of Lakes Mead and Mohave and provides a brief management context of the lakes within the Colorado River system as well as overviews of the geological bedrock and sediment accumulations of the lakes. Chapter 3 contains summaries of the operational and hydrologic characteristics of Lakes Mead and Mohave. Chapter 4 provides information on water quality, including discussion on the monitoring of contaminants and sediments within the reservoirs. Chapter 5 describes aquatic biota and wildlife, including food-web dynamics, plankton, invertebrates, fish, aquatic birds, and aquatic vegetation. Chapter 6 outlines threats and stressors to the health of Lake Mead aquatic ecosystems that include a range of environmental contaminants, invasive species, and climate change. Chapter 7 provides a more detailed summary of overall findings that are presented in Chapter 1; and it contains a more detailed discussion on associated management implications, additional research, and monitoring needs.

Achieving State Goals for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) | January 15th, 2015

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) is a biodiverse ecosystem that covers about 1,150 square miles and supports over 700 species of fish and wildlife. The Delta is a

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) is a biodiverse ecosystem that covers about 1,150 square miles and supports over 700 species of fish and wildlife. The Delta is an important source of water for the state and is used to convey water from Northern California to Southern California. The Delta faces several significant problems, including: (1) a decline in key native fish species, (2) reductions in the amount of Delta water available for use elsewhere, (3) water pollutants that cause harm to species and increase treatment costs, and (4) levees at significant risk of failure. The state has engaged in numerous efforts to address these problems and achieve its "coequal goals" for the Delta: water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration. There are many opportunities for the Legislature to improve the success of these efforts. We identified several issues for its consideration, including (1) demands for Delta water, (2) uncertain funding sources and slow implementation of some key activities, (3) limits on the effectiveness of governance in the Delta, and (4) challenges to restoring the Delta ecosystem. By addressing some of these issues, the Legislature can improve the likelihood that its goals and objectives for the Delta will be realized.

Adaptive Management - Applications Guide

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) | January 1st, 2012

The Department of the Interior (DOI) Adaptive Management Working Group sponsored the development of this applications guide to provide thorough examples for a better unde

The Department of the Interior (DOI) Adaptive Management Working Group sponsored the development of this applications guide to provide thorough examples for a better understanding of how adaptive management can be implemented in the field. The applications guide builds on the framework for adaptive management presented in the DOI Adaptive Management Technical Guide, and illustrates the elements of adaptive management with a large number of natural resource examples. The Adaptive Management Working Group includes representatives from most DOI bureaus and offices. Writing teams of resource managers, technical experts, and other specialists worked with the group to identify and describe applications of adaptive management in four thematic areas: climate change, water resources, energy resources, and the interface of human and natural systems. These themes were chosen to illustrate the elements and processes of adaptive management because of their importance to DOI management responsibilities, the current interest in the thematic areas in using adaptive management, and the broad potential in each thematic area for learning-based management. In writing this guide, we attempted to provide enough background about the elements of adaptive management implementation, and the challenges in implementing it, to give the reader a context for the resource examples. We also sought to provide enough detail in the examples to illustrate clearly the elements of adaptive management. Thus, the guide includes summaries of the principles and issues relevant to adaptive management, followed by descriptions of potential and actual applications in each of the four thematic areas. The intention was to provide enough detail about the actual process of adaptive management to be informative, while limiting the scope, complexity, and size of the document.

Adaptive Management - Technical Guide

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) | January 1st, 2009

The Department of the Interior (DOI) Adaptive Management Working Group (AMWG) sponsored the development of this technical guide to clearly and consistently define adaptiv

The Department of the Interior (DOI) Adaptive Management Working Group (AMWG) sponsored the development of this technical guide to clearly and consistently define adaptive management and describe conditions for its implementation. AMWG membership includes representatives from across DOI’s bureaus and offices. A writing team of resource managers, technical experts, and other specialists worked with AMWG to address four basic questions concerning adaptive management: (1) What is adaptive management? (2) When should it be used? (3) How should it be implemented? (4) How can its success be recognized and measured? These questions were used to organize both the writing effort and the structure of the guide itself, with individual chapters addressing each of the questions. The authors sought to describe adaptive management at an appropriate level of technical detail, while remaining focused on its definition, operational components, and conditions in which it applies. A key challenge was to provide sufficient detail for clarification, while limiting the length and complexity of the document.

Adaptive Management and Science for the Delta Ecosystem

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | October 1st, 2013

Using science to adaptively guide management for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is widely talked about as good public policy.  Almost every agency, stakeholder, and pl

Using science to adaptively guide management for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is widely talked about as good public policy.  Almost every agency, stakeholder, and planning process professes support and has its own adaptive management and science efforts.  But highly fragmented adaptive management and science cannot solve such urgent complex problems. California’s 2009 Delta Reform Act recognized that meeting the co-equal goals of a sustainable ecosystem and water supply reliability in the Delta required major changes in governance, planning, and management. Such changes also require major changes in how science is organized and employed in management. Here is a straw proposal for integrating the many parochial science and adaptive management programs for the Delta.

Adaptive Management for Ecosystem Restoration: Analysis and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | March 4th, 2011

Adaptive management is the process of incorporating new scientific and programmatic information into the implementation of a project or plan to ensure that the goals of t

Adaptive management is the process of incorporating new scientific and programmatic information into the implementation of a project or plan to ensure that the goals of the activity are being reached efficiently. It promotes flexible decision-making to modify existing activities or create new activities if new circumstances arise (e.g., new scientific information) or if projects are not meeting their goals. The complex and dynamic nature of ecosystems make their restoration and management amenable to an adaptive management approach, and the concept is being implemented at scales that include entire regions or river basins. Adaptive management has been used to guide several major ecosystem restoration efforts with involvement by the federal  government, including those on the Colorado and Platte rivers. Some of these adaptive management efforts have been specifically authorized by Congress, whereas other efforts have been formulated by agencies. Adaptive management has also been proposed as a guiding principle for several new and ongoing major restoration efforts, including those in the Chesapeake Bay and Lake Tahoe. The concept of adaptive management is straightforward, but its implementation can be difficult. A preliminary review of federal adaptive management efforts related to ecosystem restoration projects suggests that governance structures, management protocol and other factors vary widely.  Additionally, the scope and timing of efforts employing the term “adaptive management” seems  to vary among these projects. Where adaptive management has been implemented, it has encountered challenges. While adaptive management theoretically uses the best available science and monitoring to guide a project or program towards its stated goals, in practice the process can be affected by a number of outside factors. As the number of federal adaptive management efforts grows, Congress may revisit its role in shaping adaptive management programs in legislation. Some argue that Congress should do more to provide specific direction for major adaptive management initiatives in order to make adaptive management more consistent among these efforts. Others contend that Congress should allow federal agencies or restoration governing bodies to shape their own adaptive management programs, thus providing them with flexibility to match their program to their restoration needs. In addressing adaptive management, Congress may face decisions regarding the implementation guidelines and authorizations it provides these efforts, funds to establish and carry out these programs, and oversight issues. This report provides an introduction to the concept of adaptive management. It focuses on the application of this concept to large, freshwater aquatic ecosystem restoration projects with multiple stakeholders. A summary of the benefits and drawbacks of adaptive management for these projects is provided, along with analysis of potential issues associated with various governance models for these efforts. The potential role for Congress in addressing adaptive management is also discussed. As an appendix, the report summarizes the structure and implementation of federal adaptive management efforts to date five ecosystems: Glen Canyon/Colorado River, Platte River, Lower Colorado River, Missouri River, and Florida Everglades.