Chronology of major litigation involving the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | January 1st, 2013

A chronology of major litigation involving the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project from 1950 to 2007.

A chronology of major litigation involving the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project from 1950 to 2007.

Citizen's Guide to Working with the California Water Boards

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | July 8th, 2011

The Guide provides an overview of the Water Boards and the many opportunities that all Californians have to participate with the Water Boards in decisions and activities

The Guide provides an overview of the Water Boards and the many opportunities that all Californians have to participate with the Water Boards in decisions and activities that affect the state’s water resources. While some of the public participation opportunities are formal, e.g., at a Water Board hearing, others are less formal, but just as important, e.g., a stakeholder process implemented by a Regional Board. Although the Guide doesn’t contain information about specific water quality decisions that are before the Boards, it will direct you where you can find that information. We look forward to updating this Guide periodically to assure its continuing usefulness to you, the public.

City of San Bernardino vs. Fontana Water Co. et al.

Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino | January 28th, 1924

Clearer Structure, Cleaner Water: Improving Performance and Outcomes at the State Water Boards

Little Hoover Commission | January 1st, 2009

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

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.”

Climate Vulnerability and Adaptation Study for California: Legal Analysis of Barriers to Adaptation for California’s Water Sector

California Energy Commission (CEC) | July 31st, 2012

This project focused on the legal and institutional framework associated with California’s water rights allocation system, and identifies changes to that framework that

This project focused on the legal and institutional framework associated with California’s water rights allocation system, and identifies changes to that framework that would facilitate adaptation to climate change. Since such changes may be difficult to accomplish, the project focused largely, but not exclusively, on changes that may be politically feasible now or in the future. There is already conflict in California over water allocation, and climate change will exacerbate that conflict by increasing demand and decreasing supply. Adaptation will be needed both to address already unavoidable impacts from historical emissions, and to address impacts from future emissions. To identify changes that would facilitate adaptation this study looked at recent legislation, policy proposals, and white papers addressing water reform; and off?the record interviews were conducted with individuals familiar with California water law. Having an accurate record of who is diverting water in California, and in what quantity, is the single most important step towards preparing for climate change, and the recommendations reflect that. For groundwater, the changes identified would (1) expand groundwater monitoring and reporting requirements, (2) expand groundwater planning requirements, and (3) require the State Board to improve groundwater management and to prevent the waste or unreasonable use of groundwater. For surface water, the changes we identify would (1) require the State Board to provide information about efficient agricultural water management practices, and streamline State Board procedures for enforcement actions for the waste and unreasonable use of water, (2) increase the enforcement of and penalties for failing to file a Statement of Water Diversion and Use and for illegal diversions, (3) require all beneficiaries of the water rights system to bear the cost of activities related to the administration of those rights, and (4) expand reporting requirements to require diverters to state what they believe their water rights to be.

Colorado River Basin Ten Tribes Partnership Tribal Water Study

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | December 13th, 2018

The Colorado River Basin Tribes Partnership (a.k.a. Ten Tribes Partnership) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) initially undertook the Colorado River Basin Triba

The Colorado River Basin Tribes Partnership (a.k.a. Ten Tribes Partnership) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) initially undertook the Colorado River Basin Tribal Water Study to augment the data produced for the Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study of 2012. With five tribes in the Upper Basin and five tribes in the Lower Basin, and between us, holding rights to more than 2.8 million acre-feet per year of water from the Colorado River and its tributaries, the Ten Tribes Partnership was uniquely positioned to explore these issues. However, in so doing, we learned that the effort would also serve to facilitate a broader and, we hope, a better understanding of the role tribal water plays, and will play, in the Colorado River Basin over the coming decades. In addition to producing technical information, the Tribes had other goals. First, we wanted to better understand how, at present, each of our individual water use scenarios fits into the overall scheme of Colorado River Basin management. Second, we wanted to know how future development of tribal water resources will alter Basin operations and affect other water users who are now using water to which a tribe may hold legal title, but which the title-holding tribe has not yet developed for its own use. Finally, we wanted to assess – to the extent present information allows – the role future development of tribal water rights will have on Basin operations. Along the way, we encountered data gaps, modeling limitations, and uncertainties, but nonetheless, with the support of Reclamation, we managed to address those issues sufficiently that we now provide this Report. If there is a ‘take-away’ that was surprising, it is that, even under the most favorable of circumstances for rapid tribal water development, the amount of water that will be used by the Tribes is dramatically overshadowed by the effect of climatic conditions on the overall supply of water in the Basin. Nature is still in charge. Challenges remain, but opportunities are in the offing. We hope this Report informs, resolves some uncertainty about how tribes perceive the future for their water uses, and establishes a baseline for discussions and development of relationships among tribes, states, the federal government, water managers, and water users throughout the Basin.

Colorado River Compact, 1922

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | November 24th, 1922

Comparing Local Groundwater Withdrawal Permitting Laws in the Southwest and California

Stanford University | October 13th, 2016

 For the first time in California’s history, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) aims to empower local agencies to sustainably manage the pumping

 For the first time in California’s history, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) aims to empower local agencies to sustainably manage the pumping of groundwater. A notable, but often unremarked, aspect of SGMA is that it provides Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) with the power to adopt rules and regulations to establish “groundwater extraction allocations” (i.e., a permitting regime). California is the last of the seven southwest states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah — to introduce a permitting power, suggesting that the other southwestern states can inform GSAs looking to promote sustainability through the use of their new power to establish extraction allocations. 

Counties Wresting Control: Local Responses to California's Statewide Water Market

University of Denver Water Law Review (UDWLR) | January 1st, 2003

Decision on Petition for Rulemaking to Set Permanent Minimum Flows on the Shasta River

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | February 16th, 2024