The Role of CalFed and Collaborative Processes in Resolving California’s Water Dilemmas

By Randolph B. Flay

May 2001

 

 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 2

Module 1—General Background..................................................................................................... 2

I. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 2

II. Water in California................................................................................................................... 4

III. Stakeholders in California Water Issues................................................................................. 7

IV. Historical Development of Water Law and Allocation in California........................................ 7

V. Summary of Module 1........................................................................................................... 10

Module 2—Problem Description................................................................................................... 11

I. The Issues of Water Supply and Quality................................................................................ 11

II. Additional Information on Existing Management.................................................................... 12

III. Confronting the Problem....................................................................................................... 12

IV. Stakeholders and Their Objectives...................................................................................... 14

V. Summary of Module 2........................................................................................................... 16

Module 3—Implementation/Management Strategies.................................................................... 17

I. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 17

II. Goals and Purposes of the CalFed Program........................................................................ 17

III. Governance in CalFed.......................................................................................................... 20

IV. Long-term CalFed Programs............................................................................................... 20

V. Obstacles to CalFed............................................................................................................. 23

Module 4—Policy Processes and Outcomes............................................................................... 26

I. Decision-Making Processes................................................................................................... 26

II. Programmatic Approaches to Problem Solving.................................................................... 28

Module 5—Impacts and Lessons Learned................................................................................... 31

I. Conclusions: What Can Be Learned from CalFed?.............................................................. 31

Module 6—Exercises.................................................................................................................... 34

Activity 1: Analysis of the CalFed Process................................................................................ 34

Activity 2: Develop a Collaborative Process.............................................................................. 34

Activity 3: Design a Training Course......................................................................................... 35

References.................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 37

1. Bay-Delta Advisory Council Members................................................................................... 37

2. Species of Concern............................................................................................................... 38

3. Glossary of Terms................................................................................................................. 39

4. List of Acronyms.................................................................................................................... 40

5. Internet Links......................................................................................................................... 41

6. Unit Conversions................................................................................................................... 42

7. Selected Articles.................................................................................................................... 43

 

 

Executive Summary

California’s approach to managing water faces new demands in the form of rising urban populations, new legal protections for endangered species and water quality, and a $28 billion per year agricultural industry.  These new demands exist in an inflexible allocation system based largely on unquantified and unclear entitlements to surface water and groundwater, and in a time when new, on-stream surface storage projects go without consideration. 

 

In attempting to best serve the public’s interest in water and meet the demands of a diverse group of agricultural, urban, and environmental water uses in California, a comprehensive solution was conceived.  This program, known as CalFed, has been a 10-year effort to develop a solution to address water quality and endangered species in the Bay-Delta region, the hub of the State’s largest water projects, and resolve issues surrounding the State’s maldistribution of water.  

 

CalFed is a pioneering effort not without its drawbacks and obstacles, but it provides an instructive base for the discussion of issues such as decision-making processes and creative programmatic approaches to solving water problems in a time of increasing constraints.  The program demonstrates the merit of wide array of water management techniques including regulation, collaborative management, multilateral governmental cooperation, ecosystem restoration, integrated storage, and other incentive-based programs, such as water conservation. 

 

Whether CalFed will be a major step forward in managing water in California respectful of long-term social goals, or simply be an expensive mistake remains unclear, however, the attempt itself will prove to be a valuable experiment.  This case study is an effort to identify the conditions leading up to CalFed, the creativities in its programming and decision-making processes, and the potential obstacles to successful implementation.  We will examine a range of environmental, institutional, economic, and social issues surrounding water in California that must enter into the decision-making process.

Module 1—General Background

I. Introduction

The temporal and spatial characteristics of water in California have created a tenuous relationship between humans and the natural environment.  In perhaps no location is this relationship more visible than in the Great Central Valley and Bay-Delta ecosystem.  The San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers drain this large inland valley, covering 37% of California, through the Delta to the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean.  This vast land of 15 million acres includes dense urban areas such as the San Francisco Bay Area of 6 million people and large expanses of agricultural lands of cotton, alfalfa, fruits, and vegetables in the Great Central Valley (Unit conversions can be found in Appendix 6). 

 


In California, two major characteristics of water are that the majority of precipitation falls during the winter and it falls in the northern portion of the state (See Figure 1: A Map of California Watersheds).  These characteristics are in contradiction to demand which is higher during the summer and in the southern regions.  Increasing population throughout the state and increasing environmental needs have come to conflict with the predominant allocation of water resources in the state for agricultural purposes.  This historical precedent has established rights and systems of allocating water that are relatively inflexible to changing needs.  This general allocation pattern must be altered to meet the needs of a rising population and increased regulatory protections for the environment.  Efforts need also be undertaken to ensure that water is more efficiently used and that the landscapes that provide water, along with its natural inhabitants, are protected.

 


Although there are no perfect solutions to achieving the significant changes in water allocation and management that need to take place, one approach emphasizing a broad coalition of stakeholders and a collaborative process can be found in the CalFed Program.  This unique alliance of federal, state, and local governments, along with other stakeholders, has stressed non-regulatory approaches to meeting the demands of water quality management and endangered species protection. 

 

The following case study will review the history of water in California leading up to CalFed, the programmatic and institutional creativities of CalFed, and the potential for success or failure in CalFed implementation.

II. Water in California


The physiography of California is dominated by the Great Central Valley that extends from the far northern reaches of California near Redding down all the way to the Tehachapi mountains in the South (See Figure 2: Shaded Relief Map of California’s Great Central Valley).  This valley is bounded on the east by the Sierra Nevada Range and on the west by the Coast Ranges.  In total the watershed covers about 15 million acres.  The northern portion or Sacramento Valley is drained by the Sacramento River and its several tributaries.  The southern portion is comprised of an enclosed basin at the extreme south with no natural outlets, the Tulare Basin, and of the San Joaquin Basin which is drained by the San Joaquin River.  At the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers is a complex region of inland marshes, brackish water systems, and a delta which extend to San Francisco Bay and out underneath the Golden Gate Bridge to the Pacific Ocean.  The Delta has an area of approximately 738,000 acres and drains approximately 61,000 square miles or 37 percent of the state.  Delta inflow ranges from 6 to 69 million acre-feet per year with an average of 24 million acre-feet.

The Delta serves as the hub for much of the State’s water supply system.  Over 7000 separate diverters draw water from the Delta system.  Two major projects, the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the California State Water Project (SWP), draw approximately 5.9 million acre-feet directly out of the Delta each year (Please see Appendix 3 and 4 for unclear terms or acronyms).  Water diverted and consumed in the Delta itself for agricultural and urban purposes amounts to about one million acre-feet annually.  There are 400 plant, 125 bird, 52 mammal, 22 reptile and amphibian, and 130 fish species known to inhabit the Delta region.  Tidal marsh habitat in the Delta originally occupied about 345,000 acres but has been reduced to 8,000 acres over the past 200 years.  These non-agricultural species share the region with 52,000 acres of farmlands, predominantly wheat, alfalfa, corn, and tomatoes with a gross revenue of $500 million per year.  Approximately 12 million people per year camp, hike, sightsee, bicycle, horseback ride, boat, water ski, and fish in the region.  There are 700 miles of waterways protected by 1100 miles of levees (CalFed Bay-Delta Program 1999; CalFed Bay-Delta Program 2000; CalFed Bay-Delta Program 2000).

 

Many of the agricultural activities in the Central Valley are supported by irrigation waters obtained from reservoirs to the north of Sacramento such as Shasta and Orville (See Figure 3: A Map of Central Valley Project Facilities and Figure 4: A Map of State Water Project Facilities).  Water stored in these reservoirs is released into the Sacramento River in times of need, and extracted from the Delta region to be transported south.  Users of this water have both long-standing water rights and contractual rights to certain amounts of water each year, depending on availability.  A large portion of the water that is transported out of the Bay-Delta system is sent to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to supply urban areas in the Los Angeles region, equal to about 800,000 acre-feet per year.  Several authorities in the Bay-Delta region, such as Contra Costa Water Agency, extract water for local urban use (Department of Water Resources 1979; Department of Water Resources 1999).

 

For much of California’s history since 1850, agricultural and urban water use were the two most important forms of water allocation.  This has begun to change since the recent passage of certain federal and state legislation protecting both water quality and endangered species.  This legislation gave rise to the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA), and is requiring revisions in the operation of these large water projects and of the methods and amounts of water allocation.  Today the federal and state governments have a statutory obligation to maintain flows to protect endangered species and also to ensure water of sufficient quality.  These new laws, in addition to increased public awareness, have increased the demands of the third use group referred to as environmental or in-stream use.

 

This setting demonstrates the increasing legal constraints of managing the spatial, temporal, and chemical characteristics of water resources to meet the mixed needs of agricultural, urban, and environmental uses.  These new constraints are arising in a time when the grand surface water storage projects of the mid-1900s are not often considered viable options, and thus supplies are growing much slower than demand.  Thus California has been faced with the task of meeting the rising demands of water quality standards, endangered species, and population in a system that was nearly fully allocated many years ago.

III. Stakeholders in California Water Issues

There are a large number and diversity of stakeholders (people who have a share or an interest in water) concerned with the water issues of the Bay-Delta and Central Valley region.  Stakeholders include regulatory agencies, agencies that allocate or manage water, end-users such as water districts or irrigation districts, nongovernmental organizations that represent both agricultural and environmental interests.  Additionally, native American tribes have a great interest, hold rather large tracts of land in California, and have relations directly with the federal government.  Major regulatory agencies include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Fish and Game Department (CDFG), the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and others.  Government agencies in charge of operating or allocating water include the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) which operates the CVP, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) which operates the SWP, the SWRCB which determines water rights, and others.  Major end-users of water include the irrigation districts and water agencies of the Central Valley with predominantly agricultural interests, urban water agencies such as the MWD, and others.  Nongovernmental organizations have also played a strong role in influencing the management of water in the region and lobbying for a range of environmental, agricultural, and urban interests, e.g. the California Farm Bureau Federation, Environmental Defense, the Sierra Club, and the Association of California Water Agencies. 

IV. Historical Development of Water Law and Allocation in California

Water law has an interesting history, particularly in California.  Today’s complex problems in California water issues have evolved from a complex system of water law whereby the rights of individuals to use water were first established.  Until the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, present-day California was under Mexican law (Strauss and Murphy 1956).  Riparian rights—the right of an owner of land adjacent to a body of water to use that water—largely dominated.  However, given the vast uninhabited areas, the Mexican government granted water on the public domain for use on the agricultural settlements of pueblos.  Thus, these settlements were granted Pueblo Rights to use water from adjacent public lands as needed.  These were the only vested water rights carried over to the U.S. upon signing the treaty.

 

In 1850 California was admitted to the Union and by statute adopted the common law (court made law) of England where consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The common law of England included the doctrine of riparian rights.  With the discovery of gold and the influx of the miners, a second system, appropriation water rights, grew in importance.  Miners rarely held title to the land, but required large volumes of water for hydraulic mining in which cannons of water were targeted at soft alluvial deposits to create a slurry that was later sifted to pan out gold.  Additionally, ranchers and other water users on the public domain also needed a way of obtaining water rights. With appropriation rights, a system by which the use of water conferred ownership was established, regardless of land ownership.  Time became the most important factor in this rights process, leading to the phrase: "First in time, first in right."

 

In 1869, the State declared ownership of water in Article X, Section 5 of the California Constitution: "The use of all water now appropriated, or that may hereafter be appropriated, for sale, rental, or distribution, is hereby declared to be a public use, and subject to the regulation and control of the State, in the manner to be prescribed by law."  Three years later, California's courts formally recognized the rights of appropriated water on public land. This was followed in 1872 by a state statute recognizing appropriations of water so long as record was made of the diversion or taking possession of the water with the county recorder (Strauss and Murphy 1956). 

 

The rising dominance of appropriation rights was checked in 1886 in the California Supreme Court decision of Lux v. Haggin.  The court held that riparian rights to undiminished flow are automatically attached to riparian land when it becomes private property and thus are paramount to appropriation rights. 

 

            In 1913 the Legislature of California passed the Water Commission Act, creating the State Water Commission and codifying procedures for the appropriation of water.  Riparian right dominance over appropriation rights was restated in Herminghaus v. Southern California Edison Company (1926).  This case held that a riparian owner was entitled to the full flow of a stream without regard to reasonableness against appropriators, finding the doctrine of reasonable use only applied between riparian owners.  This holding induced the Legislature of California to pass an amendment to the Constitution of California in 1928, limiting the right of riparian owners to water reasonably acquired for beneficial use.  This amended formally balanced riparian and appropriation rights in California in a system that is referred to as the California Doctrine of water rights.

 

With regard to groundwater, the Supreme Court of California in Katz v. Walkinshaw (1903) 141 Cal. 116 applied the riparian doctrine to underground waters.  The decision held that overlying owners had "equal and correlative rights" in the use of water for overlying lands and that use by a owner for overlying lands is preeminent to use for non-overlying lands.  This ruling replaced the prevailing “Rule of Capture” from English Common Law established in Acton v. Blundell (1843).  In 1978 a Governor's Commission to Review Water Rights Law recommended a statewide groundwater policy.  To this day no such policy exists (Department of Water Resources 1979).

A. The Central Valley and State Water Projects

California’s humble beginnings as a state in 1850 belied the great thirst for that was to come.  First, mining in the 1850s and 1860s, and later agriculture led to an influx of settlers and a sharp increase in water demand.   The growth of agriculture in the Great Central Valley and elsewhere was augmented by the invention of the deep-well turbine pump in the 1920s, which allowed extraction from a depth of 600 meters or more (Narasimhan and Quinn 1996).  This invention prompted a rapid decline in groundwater levels throughout much of Great Central Valley and resulting land subsidence. 

Text Box: Figure 5: Central Valley Project Facts This multiple-purpose project plays a key role in California's powerful economy. About 60 percent of the cost of the CVP was allocated to irrigation and municipal and industrial water with the remainder to other beneficial uses. The system reaches some 400 miles, from the Cascade Mountains near Redding in the north to the Tehachapi Mountains near Bakersfield in the south. A few facts: · Consists of 20 dams and reservoirs, 11 powerplants, and 500 miles of major canals, as well as conduits, tunnels, and related facilities. · Manages some 9 million acre-feet of water. · Annually delivers about 7 million acre-feet of water for agricultural, urban, and wildlife use. · Provides about 5 million acre-feet for farms -- enough to irrigate about 3 million acres, or approximately one-third of the agricultural land in California. · Furnishes about 600,000 acre-feet for municipal and industrial use--enough to supply close to 1 million households with their water needs each year. · Generates 5.6 billion kilowatt hours of electricity annually to meet the needs of about 2 million people. · Dedicates 800,000 acre-feet per year to fish and wildlife and their habitat and 410,00 acre-feet to State and Federal wildlife refuges and wetlands, pursuant to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). · Provides water for 6 of the top 10 agricultural counties in California. It has been estimated that the value of crops and related service industries has returned 100 times Congress's $3 billion investment in the CVP.
 


Text Box: Figure 6: California State Water Project Facts The California SWP is a water storage and delivery system of reservoirs, aqueducts, powerplants and pumping plants. Its main purpose is to store water and distribute it to 29 urban and agricultural water suppliers in Northern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley, and Southern California. Of the contracted water supply, 70 percent goes to urban users and 30 percent goes to agricultural users. The Project makes deliveries to two-thirds of California's population. It is maintained and operated by the California DWR. The Project is also operated to improve water quality in the Delta, control Feather River flood waters, provide recreation, and enhance fish and wildlife. In 1960, California voters approved the $1.75 billion bond issue to begin building the SWP. The Project was designed and constructed by DWR. By 1973, the initial facilities were completed and water delivery to southern California began. Today, the Project includes 32 storage facilities, reservoirs and lakes; 17 pumping plants; 3 pumping-generating plants; 5 hydroelectric power plants; and about 660 miles of open canals and pipelines. The Project provides supplemental water to approximately 20 million Californians and about 660,000 acres of irrigated farmland.
Improvements in dam building technology in the 1920s and 1930s provided state leaders with comprehensive solution to coordinate water resources throughout the state.  In 1933 the California Legislature adopted a plan for transfer of water from the Sacramento River and northern California to the water-deficient  areas of the San Joaquin Valley through construction of a "Central Valley Project (Court of Appeal 1986)."  Shasta Dam, the central feature, was to store and regulate waters of the Sacramento River; Friant Dam, on the western edge of the Sierra, was to divert water from the San Joaquin River to southern regions of the valley; and various other units were designed to transfer water from the Sacramento River system to the San Joaquin Valley.  However, given unfavorable economic conditions, the state turned to the federal government to finance and construct the project.

 


Construction of the CVP began in 1937. It is now one of the world's most extensive water transport systems (See Figure 5: Central Valley Project Facts (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1999). As noted, Shasta Dam on the upper Sacramento River is the focal point of the CVP. Shasta Dam began storing water and generating electric power in 1944. The waters of the Sacramento River which flow past the Shasta Dam are augmented by additional water supplies brought through a tunnel from the Trinity River and from reservoirs formed by Folsom and Nimbus Dams on the American River. About 30 miles south of Sacramento, the Delta Cross Channel regulates the passage of Sacramento River water through the Delta to the Tracy Pumping Plant.

 

At Rock Slough, a portion of the water is pumped into the Contra Costa Canal for municipal uses in Contra Costa County. At the Tracy Pumping Plant, the water is lifted nearly 200 feet above sea level into the Delta Mendota Canal and flows 117 miles southward to the Mendota Pool. Here, the waters from the north augment the natural flow of the San Joaquin River. At Friant Dam, the flow of the San Joaquin River is impounded and diverted through the Friant-Kern Canal 152 miles south to the southern reaches of the San Joaquin Valley.

 

Following World War II, state authorities renewed their efforts to develop a comprehensive statewide water plan, one that recognized the increasing urban demand. In 1951 the Legislature authorized the Feather River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Diversion Project.  This project -- the SWP -- began operations in 1967 under management of the DWR (See Figure 6: California State Water Project Facts (Department of Water Resources 1999)). Water from the Feather River is stored behind Oroville Dam and is released into the Feather River and its eventual confluence with the Sacramento River. The greatest portion of water is lifted into the California Aqueduct for transport through the San Joaquin Valley and eventually again lifted by a series of pumping stations over the Tehachapi Mountains for use to southern California.  Although the CVP was almost exclusively constructed for agricultural water use, the SWP dedicates a large portion of its contracted supply to urban water use.

 

"The statewide coordinated development of  California's water resources poses many complex legal problems. These problems are further complicated by: inadequacies and uncertainties of present state statutes generally; available procedures for acquisition of water rights; the nature and extent of vested rights in the use of surface and ground water; preferential rights of areas in which water originates; questions of the effectiveness of contract rights in assuring deficient areas of a dependable water supply; and questions of relations between the state and other agencies (Rogers and Nichols 1967)."  Virtually all of the problems catalogued by the Rogers and Nichols were at issue in the court case, United States v. SWRCB (1989).  This case, as we will later discuss, essentially held that operators of the large projects need to comply with restrictions on water quality imposed by the SWRCB. 

V. Summary of Module 1

 

 

Module 2—Problem Description

I. The Issues of Water Supply and Quality

Land and water use activities in the region have dramatic effects on both the quality and availability of water in the Bay Delta and Central Valley region.  Modifications in the quantity of water came in the form of diversions from rivers, extraction of groundwater, alteration of the timing of river flows, as well as dramatic alterations to habitat.  Habitat modifications in the region include a 95 percent reduction in wetlands in California over 150 years, replacement of riparian habitat with agricultural and urban land use types, channeling of runoff in culverts and lined canals, seasonal flood reduction, and other land impacts. 

 

Urban and industrial discharges into the river system increases levels of biochemical oxygen demand, heavy metals, phosphates, and other pollutants.  Many of these sources have been regulated through CWA permitting, laws which have helped to limit the influx of pollutants into surface water.  Leaking underground storage tanks present a continued threat to groundwater sources, especially given the volumes of solvents and other toxic materials that help support the states technological industries.  Although there has been some progress in the improvement of technologies for underground storage tanks, as seen with gasoline storage tanks, they still represent a major threat to groundwater resources particularly in heavily populated areas.

 

Nonpoint source pollution is currently the greatest threat to water quality in the Central Valley and Bay-Delta region (Department of Water Resources 1998).  A good portion of this nonpoint source pollution stems from agricultural land use in the Central Valley and Delta region, activities which add high levels of nutrients and pesticides to the waterways.  Other effects of irrigated agriculture are the evaporative concentration of salts in irrigated areas and the leaching of trace elements from soils, effects that can reduce agricultural productivity and prove toxic to organisms.  The resulting drainage water represents a serious issue for disposal (Letey, Roberts et al. 1986).  Currently there exist only two major ways of disposing of drainage water: 1) evaporative ponds located on the farm, and 2) discharge into rivers.  Neither option is without consequences.  Discharging salty waters with high concentrations of trace elements such as selenium and boron into waterways cause serious damage to riparian downstream users and natural ecosystems.  Evaporation ponds have proved a trap for wildlife such as migratory waterfowl and livestock.  High levels of trace elements such as selenium can be fatal (See Figure 8) (Letey, Roberts et al. 1986; Narasimhan and Quinn 1996). 

 

            Figure 7 shows some of the major water quality and quantity issues in the Bay-Delta and Central Valley region.

Figure 7: Table summarizing some of the major water quality and quantity issues in the Bay-Delta and Central Valley Region and the impacts to agricultural, domestic, and in-stream (environmental) uses.

 

Impact to:

Alteration

Agriculture

Domestic

In-stream

Reduction in stream flows

Reduce the assimilative capacity.

Reduce the assimilative capacity.

Reduce the assimilative capacity, flow might be insufficient for fish passage, temperature might increase.

Reduction in groundwater

Increased pump costs, subsidence.

Increased pump costs, subsidence.

Reduction of stream recharge and native vegetative cover due to a lowering of the water table, as in the Owens Valley.

Subsidence

Reduced aquifer storage capacity, building damage.

Reduced aquifer storage capacity, building damage.

Reduced stream recharge in dry periods.

Pesticides

 

Drinking water quality may not meet Safe Drinking Water Act standards, e.g. pesticide contamination such as DBCP.

Bioaccumulation in food web, sensitive species of macro-invertebrates, fish, and birds may suffer health effects.

Nutrients

 

Nitrate levels do not meet Safe Drinking Water Act standards in many regions of the Central Valley. 

Eutrophication (decreased dissolved oxygen given increased algal growth and decomposition).

Salinity

Salinity of applied water and resident groundwater can stress plants and reduce yields.  West side of the San Joaquin Valley is highly susceptible due to poorly drained soils. 

Dramatically increased purification costs

Overlying species may be adversely affected by areas with saline shallow groundwater.  Bare soil evaporation may continue to increase salinity even in fallowed or retired lands.

Trace elements

 

 

 

 

Toxic to waterfowl, livestock, and aquatic life. 

Sediment erosion

Soil loss can lead to long-term declines in agricultural productivity.

Increased turbidity can compromise disinfection.  High organic carbon in the chlorination process can lead to Trihalomethanes.

Negative impact to spawning fish species. 

II. Additional Information on Existing Management

 

For an authoritative description of existing management of water resources in California, please see Appendix 7: Selected Articles, “Institutional Framework for Allocating and Managing Water Resources” in California from the California Water Plan Update, 160-98.

III. Confronting the Problem

In California, as in many regions of the world, water resource issues are now being taken more seriously as the long-term consequences and costs associated with the remediation of contaminated or damaged water resources are beginning to be appreciated.  In California this change arose largely from 1) enforcement of the CWA and ESA, and 2) crises, such as the Kesterson Reservoir selenium problem, that stirred public opinion. 

 

Raised public awareness and major federal legislation in the 1970s such as the CWA and ESA supplied much of the impetus for change.  Broadly, the CWA requires that states set general water criteria for water bodies that are impaired.  Once these criteria are established it is the responsibility of the state government to see that these standards are met.  The ESA also greatly restricts human activities in regions where threatened or endangered species are located.  The USFWS and the NMFS have jurisdiction over endangered species.

 

Text Box: Figure 8: Selenium Toxicity at Kesterson Reservoir Large amounts of imported water are used to irrigate lands in the Central Valley, most of which quickly evaporates. Although the waters evaporate, salts and trace elements, such as selenium and boron, are left behind. As the salts buildup in the root zone, plants have to expend more and more energy to create an osmotic potential to draw water into their roots. In order to reduce the stress on plants, subsurface tile drains were installed to maintain the water table at about 2 meters in depth, reducing water-logging and salt accumulation in the root zone. In 1971, the 134 km long San Luis Drain was terminated at a series of shallow regulating ponds, later known as Kesterson Reservoir, to collect waters from many of these subsurface drains (original plans to terminate at the San Francisco Bay were amended because of insufficient funds). The Bureau constructed this reservoir which was later incorporated into the national wetlands system. Initially Kesterson received some fresh water flows, but by 1982 inflow consisted solely of saline water from subsurface drains, high in trace elements and pesticides. As early as 1981, ranchers in the vicinity noticed livestock abnormalities and death. They questioned the Bureau's operating practices and a rancher, James Claus, filed suit and a complaint with the SWRCB. In 1983, a large die-off of birds and later discovered reproductive failure further alerted Fish and Wildlife Service officials to the toxicity of the reservoir. On February 5th, 1985, after a series of evidentiary hearings, the SWRCB ordered the Bureau to revise operating procedures within 6 months or close Kesterson. At the federal level, the House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources met in Los Baños to investigate Kesterson's toxicity and the Bureau's involvement on March 15th, 1985. During the meeting, the California representative of the Department of the Interior, Carol Hallet, announced that the Bureau was going to shut down the reservoir and stop water deliveries to 42,000 acres of farmland in the Westland Water District. This alarmed farmers who depended on the water for irrigation and later the Bureau decided to continue deliveries, phase out Kesterson, and plug all the drains; a process that was completed in May of 1986. No final solution to agricultural drainage exists today and the majority of drainage water in the San Joaquin Valley, approximately 75,000 acre-feet, is at some point discharged into the San Joaquin River (aside from the few evaporation ponds in operation in the region). In April 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation filed with the United States District Court in Fresno a plan of action to provide drainage to the San Luis Unit. Under the court's order, Reclamation must act promptly to provide drainage service to the San Luis Unit. The plan of action provides that Reclamation will evaluate the economic feasibility and the environmental impacts/benefits of all viable drainage alternatives to support a decision on how to provide drainage service to the drainage-affected irrigated lands in the San Luis Unit.
In California, the SWRCB has the duty of enforcing CWA requirements.  This agency is responsible for developing and implementing water quality plans throughout the state.  During the 1970s, SWRCB authored plans on the Bay-Delta region and other parts of the state.  These plans require the California DWR, which operates the SWP, and the USBR, the federal entity which operates the CVP, to operate their projects in such a way as to minimize salinity levels in the Bay Delta.  This plan stimulated the lawsuits on behalf of the USBR which took a position that federal agencies do not have to comply with state laws under the CWA.  This case, United States vs. SWRCB, also known as the Racanelli decisions, set the stage for the approach taken to resolve California’s water dilemma.  Generally, the court found that United States has to comply with SWRCB’s water plan for salinity, leaving a difficult task of having two large projects, one federal and one state, work together with water users to find solutions to the Central Valley and Bay-Delta water problems. 

 


Additional pressure was put on the DWR and USBR by the USFWS and NMFS in their administration of the ESA.  The rivers of the Central Valley and Delta region are home to species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA such as the Chinook salmon (See Appendix 2, Species of Concern).  Activities in the Delta region, such as the federal and state pumping facilities which transport water toward Southern California, kill fish as they return upstream to spawn and also alter water currents in a complex Delta water system making it difficult for young fish to find their way to the ocean.  The SWP and CVP are issued permits by the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service for incidental take of listed species.  Non-compliance with these limits results in stiff fines or orders to DWR and USBR to stop pumping water from the Delta.  Compliance with the ESA thus represents another challenge for allocating water in the Central Valley.

Text Box: Figure 9: Kings County And West Side City Join In Voicing Westlands Concern From the Friant Waterline, a newsletter of the Friant Water Users Authority, a group of 25 water districts on the east side of San Joaquin Valley. http://www.fwua.org A county including part of the Westlands Water District and a neighboring West Side city are the latest of many San Joaquin Valley local governments to join in expressing concern over the Westlands Water District's attempt to take water from the San Joaquin River. Westlands in early August 2000 stunned the state's water community with its application to appropriate a San Joaquin River water supply that has been used beneficially for a half century in the Central Valley Project's Friant Division. Westlands is attempting to employ the seldom used state Area of Origin laws in an effort to establish a San Joaquin River water right superior to Friant's. In the process, it seeks to take up to 750,000 acre-feet of San Joaquin River water. KINGS COUNTY The Kings County Board of Supervisors on January 23 adopted a resolution that stated the county, which includes the southern portion of Westlands, "is deeply concerned" over the Westlands water appropriation petition. "This board urges the district to reconsider its action and to recognize the importance of agricultural and water communities working in unison to secure adequate and reliable water supplies for the valley," the resolution added. Supervisors in Kings County joined colleagues in Madera, Tulare and Kern counties who acted earlier, unanimously in each case, to oppose the Westlands action. In a letter to Westlands directors, Kings County board Chairman Tony Oliveira said Kings County understands Westlands' "frustrations over the bad policies and decisions made by the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service against production agriculture. However, Oliveira said, Westlands' attempts to end agricultural water service at Lemoore Naval Air Station and its more recent San Joaquin River application represent "divide and conquer consequences that may only embolden the federal agencies to continue making unfair choices." Oliveira said it will be difficult for Californians to retain and develop water sources. "Wasting resources fighting the wrong battles is destructive to long term mutual goals," he said. FIREBAUGH OPPOSED The City Council of Firebaugh, a western Fresno County community located a few miles north of Westlands, acted February 5, 2001 to adopt a resolution opposing the Westlands plan. "This City Council cannot support any action that in any way threatens the stability of the agricultural water supply in the Firebaugh area or diminishes opportunities to restore the San Joaquin River," the Firebaugh resolution stated. There are now 27 cities or communities on record opposing or expressing concern over the Westlands position. There are also 33 water agencies as well as other organizations that have taken similar positions.

The CWA and ESA have motivated, in a large part, the development of a new approach to addressing water issues with the SWP and CVP in California.  These are by no means the only impetus for recent action, but they are the clearest reason.  Multiple stakeholders in water allocation, regulation, and use have been motivated to find a comprehensive solution to a very complex problem.  The complexity is underlain by the multiple needs of water users and an intricate institutional and legal framework in which water is allocated.  The new approach is but one stage in the continuous evolution of water management institutions in California.

IV. Stakeholders and Their Objectives

Stakeholders can generally be broken into the three main use categories of agriculture, urban, and environment.  These groups are not homogeneous and vary, in particular between users of water north of the Delta vs. south of the Delta.  Even amongst relatively homogeneous groups, such as farmers, needs can be incredibly divergent.  These groups all have certain expectations, historical rights to water, understanding of the problem, water quality and quantity requirements, and other divisive issues.  We will begin with a basic narrative of the varying water quality and quantity needs for agricultural, urban, and in stream uses.

 

Text Box: Figure 10: The Mono Lake Case Perhaps no greater example of environmental stakeholders and the potential of the Public Trust Doctrine for protecting in-stream uses exists than the Supreme Court of California case of February 17th, 1983: National Audubon Society v. The Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles. In 1940, the Division of Water Resources (predecessor to the SWRCB) issued permits to divert water from four streams tributary to Mono Lake to the Department of Water and Power (DWP). By 1970, DWP had constructed two diversion tunnels and was taking nearly the entire supply of these streams to supply Los Angeles. As a result, the surface level in Mono Lake dropped nearly 40 feet and the surface area diminished by one-third by the mid-1970's. This concentrated salts in the lake, damaging the aquatic community and higher organisms, such as birds, which depend on it. National Audubon Society filed suit to enjoin the diversions under the theory that Mono Lake and its shores reside in the public trust. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Audubon Society. In the opinion, Justice Broussard wrote: "In our opinion, the core of the public trust doctrine is the state's authority as sovereign to exercise supervision and control over the navigable waters of the state and the lands underlying those waters. This authority applies to Mono Lake and bars DWP or any other party from claiming a vested right to divert waters once it becomes clear that such diversions harm the interests protected by the public trust." He went on to write: "Approval of such a diversion without considering public trust values, however, may result in needless destruction of those values." In terms of quantity, agriculture has the largest stake in the CVP and SWP water (about 5 million acre-feet (MAF) of 7 from the CVP and 1.5 MAF of 3.5 from the SWP).  The 6-7 MAF or 8 cubic kilometers of water for agriculture is enough to irrigate nearly one-half of California’s 8.7 million acres of irrigated farmland (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1997). Efforts to increase in-stream flows to meet CWA requirements and ESA requirements will likely have a significant toll on allocations for agriculture (See Figure 9).  However, many agricultural users of CVP water have long-standing legal rights to water extending back 50 or even 100 years.  The mechanisms for adjusting these rights in light of new information and requirements for water quality are very unclear in the existing California legal system (Court of Appeal 1986).  The CVP and SWP also contract water to water districts.  Although it seems likely that there is more flexibility to adjust contracts to meet current needs, many of these contracts are long-standing and compensation to affected parties in light of changing contract terms is also unclear (U.S. Court of Federal Claims 2001).

 

Although there are several urban users of water in the Bay Delta and Central Valley region the two largest groups are the MWD and riparian water agencies such as Contra Costa Water Agency.  Major concerns of urban water agencies is water quality, such as salinity and total organic carbon (Department of Water Resources 1998), along with water security in general.  Although economic impacts to agriculture in dry years are significant, the cyclical droughts in California pose great challenges to providing a continuous water supply.  An increase in perennial tree crops has also raised the risk of financial loss to agriculture in extended droughts.

 

In-stream or environmental stakeholders, once largely ignored in law, have greatly expanded in number and legal standing since the passage of major environmental legislation in the 1960s and 1970s, such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).  This legal standing has been magnified by an extensive increase in scientific work focused on the impact of human activities on the environment (Carson 1994).  Many nongovernmental organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Environmental Defense, the Mono Lake Committee, and other organizations are typically considered to represent interests of the environment (See The Mono Lake Case, Figure 10).  These organizations are involved in the protection of endangered species and helping to enforce water quality standards.  Various state and federal agencies are also compelled to represent the interests of the environment through the administration of laws.  It is important to note that it is largely the rise of this third environmental use group that has led to the need to reallocate water in California.  The existing systems of allocation evolved in a time when urban and agricultural interests were the sole uses considered, establishing a long tradition of water rights and contractual obligations that exists today.  It is in this somewhat inflexible setting that California is forced to locate and deliver water to these new needs.

 

This volumetric need for water for environmental purposes is complicated by the water quality requirements of natural systems.  Although increased water for environmental purposes will often improve quality by dilution, simply providing a quantity of water will not protect the flora and fauna of natural systems.  The physical obstruction of dams and diversions, water temperature alterations, timing of flows, and other factors affect the ability of species to survive in our engineered watersheds.

V. Summary of Module 2

Crises, new laws, and the emergence of environmental water use spurred a need to protect water quality and adjust allocations of water in California.  However, who must “give up” water, who should alter their water management practices, how to prioritize water rights, and many other legal, institutional, economic, and social questions complicate the process.  Clearly there is no single right answer to move California from its current water allocation to a new system of allocation that includes environmental use.  However, realizing that federal, state, and local agencies and non-governmental groups all have a role to play in the resolution of these complex issues, a unique attempt to form a coalition of these stakeholders was initiated.  This achievement was marked by the Bay-Delta Accord, signed by several federal and state agencies in 1995.  This document began a long process of studying the problem and the development of proposed solutions to the Bay-Delta’s most pressing water issues. 


Module 3—Implementation/Management Strategies

I. Introduction

 

The elaborate plan to address many of the problems presented above was realized through the three-tiered plan known as CalFed, a plan rapidly brought on by the need for DWR and USBR to comply with the CWA and ESA, but a program that recognizes other issues.  The first element of the plan was rapidly achieved with the promulgation of the Bay-Delta Accord on December 15, 1994.  State and federal agencies, along with agricultural, environmental, and urban stakeholders, signed a three-year agreement to improve the flow regime through the Delta, limit salt loading in the estuary, and take measures to prevent fish from being trapped in Delta diversion facilities. The second element of the plan, improved operations of the state-federal water projects, was accomplished with the establishment of an operations group that meets frequently to coordinate operations with greater sensitivity to endangered species needs, water quality concerns, and other problems.

 

The third element of the framework plan has taken much more time. This effort is called the CalFed Bay-Delta Program, which has a professional staff and is assisted by the Bay-Delta Advisory Council (See Appendix 1 for a listing of members). The staff and advisory council have worked since 1995 to define the problems of the region and develop solutions.

II. Goals and Purposes of the CalFed Program

CalFed’s stated objectives are to: “provide good water quality for all beneficial uses; improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve ecological functions in the Bay-Delta to support sustainable populations of diverse and valuable plant and animal species; reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and current and projected beneficial uses dependent on the Bay-Delta system; and reduce the risk to land use and associated economic activities, water supply, infrastructure, and the ecosystem from catastrophic breaching of Delta levees.  State-federal cooperation was formalized in June 1994 with the signing of a Framework Agreement by the state and federal agencies with management and regulatory responsibility in the Bay-Delta Estuary. The CalFed agencies are:

 

State:

·        Resources Agency (RA)

·        Department of Water Resources (DWR)

·        Department of Fish and Game (DFG)

·        California Environmental Protection Agencies (CalEPA)

·        State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)

·        California Department of Food & Agriculture

Federal:

·        Department of the Interior (DOI)

·        Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)

·        Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

·        Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

·        Department of Commerce  (DOC)

·        National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

·        U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

·        Department of Agriculture  (DOA)

·        Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

 

These agencies provide policy direction and oversight for the process. The Framework Agreement declared that the state and federal agencies would work together in three areas of Bay-Delta management:

1.      Water quality standards formulation;

2.      Coordination of SWP and CVP operations with regulatory requirements; and

3.      Long-term solutions to problems in the Bay-Delta Estuary (the “CalFed Bay-Delta Program”).

A. Element 1: Water Quality Standards

On December 15, 1994, state and federal agencies, working with agricultural, environmental and urban stakeholders, reached agreement on water quality standards and related provisions that would remain in effect for three years. This agreement, known as the Bay-Delta Accord, was based on a proposal developed by the stakeholders. Elements of the agreement include:

 

·        Springtime export limits expressed as a percentage of Delta inflow;

·        Regulation of the salinity gradient in the estuary so that a salt concentration of two parts per thousand (X2) is maintained where it may be more beneficial to aquatic life;

·        Specified springtime flows on the lower San Joaquin River to benefit Chinook salmon; and

·        Intermittent closure of the Delta Cross Channel gates to reduce entrapment of fish into the Delta.

 

A second category of provisions is intended to reconcile operational flexibility and compliance with the federal ESA. Compliance with provisions of the ESA is hoped to result in no reduction in water supply from what would normally be available for export under other operational requirements of the agreement. This will be accomplished in part by better monitoring for the presence of aquatic organisms of concern, faster interpretation of monitoring information, and immediate response in the operation of export facilities, i.e. real-time monitoring.

 

A third category of provisions is intended to improve conditions in the Bay-Delta Estuary that are not directly related to Delta outflow. Some of these “Category III” measures may include screening water diversions, waste discharge control, and habitat restoration. Parties to the agreement committed to implementation and financing of such measures, and estimated that a financial commitment of $60 million would be required in each of the three years of the agreement.

 

The 1994 Accord is reflected in the SWRCB's "Draft Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary" dated December 1994 and the Final Water Quality Plan, which was adopted May 22, 1995.

B. Element 2: Operational Coordination

Operators of the California SWP and the federal CVP recognized that compliance with endangered species protections, water quality standards, and provisions of the CVPIA would require project operations to be coordinated even more closely than in the past. To help ensure this coordination, representatives of the two projects and the other CalFed agencies meet regularly to plan for day-to-day project operations. The deliberations of this Operations Group or "Ops Group" are conducted in consultation with water users, environmental, and fishery representatives.  A detailed description of the OPS Group is found in Module 4.

C. Element 3: Long-Term Solutions (The CalFed Bay-Delta Program)

The third element of the Framework Agreement outlined a joint state-federal process to develop long-term solutions to problems in the Bay-Delta Estuary related to fish and wildlife, water supply reliability, natural disasters, and water quality. The intent is to develop a comprehensive and balanced plan that addresses all of the resource problems. This effort is carried out under the policy direction of the various CalFed agencies and is formally known as the CalFed Bay-Delta Program.

 

The public has a central role in the development of long-term solutions. A group of more than 30 citizen-advisors selected from California's agriculture, environmental, urban, business, fishing, and other interests with a stake in finding long-term solutions for the problems of the Bay-Delta Estuary have been chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act as the Bay-Delta Advisory Council (BDAC). BDAC advises the CalFed Program on its mission and objectives, the problems to be addressed and proposed actions. BDAC also provides a forum for public participation, and reviews reports and other materials prepared by CalFed staff.

 

The CalFed Program is managed by an interdisciplinary, interagency staff team and assisted by technical experts from state and federal agencies as well as consultants. The Program is following a three-phase process to achieve broad agreement on long-term solutions.

 

For Phase I, a clear definition of the problems to be addressed and a range of solution alternatives were developed. Second, to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a program level or first-tier environmental impact statement (EIS) and environmental impact report (EIR) were prepared to identify impacts associated with the various alternatives. Finally, a project-level or second-tier EIS/EIR was prepared for each element of the selected solution.   In Phase I, the CalFed Program developed a range of alternatives, consisting of hundreds of actions. The Program conducted meetings and workshops to obtain public input, prepared a Notice of Intent and Notice of Preparation pursuant to NEPA and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and held public scoping sessions to determine the focus and content of the EIS/EIR. The first phase concluded in September 1996 with the development of a range of alternatives for achieving long-term solutions to the problems of the Bay-Delta estuary.

During Phase II, the Program conducted a comprehensive programmatic environmental review process. A draft programmatic EIS/EIR and interim Phase II Report identifying three draft alternatives and program plans was released on March 16, 1998. The release of the documents was followed by a 105-day public comment period. On June 25, 1999, CalFed again released a draft programmatic EIS/EIR followed by a 90 day comment period. The final programmatic EIS/EIR was released July 21, 2000 followed by the Record of Decision (ROD) on August 28, 2000. The ROD completed Phase II.

 

The CalFed Program is now in Phase III - implementation of the preferred alternative.  The major components of this preferred alternative are reviewed in Section IV of Module 3. The first seven years of this phase is referred to as Stage 1. Site-specific, detailed environmental review will occur during this stage prior to the implementation of each proposed action. Implementation of the CalFed Bay-Delta solution is expected to take 30 years, to 2031.

III. Governance in CalFed

The CalFed Policy Group is made up of State and Federal agencies with support from the CalFed Bay-Delta Program staff and provides most of the direction.  It will operate for approximately two to three years until the long-term structure is in place.  In most cases, the State and Federal agencies that currently have program and funding authorities will manage appropriate program actions. While final approvals will rest with the agencies, the Policy Group will provide recommended approvals to the funding agencies.  Review and coordination is critical in the interim to ensure that programs and funding are meeting CalFed objectives.

 

Public involvement has been integrated into the CalFed Program.  Currently, public involvement will be through public advisory groups and public Policy Group meetings open to the public.  The BDAC, composed of citizens, meets jointly with Policy Group and separately as needed.  Work groups focused on individual program areas, such as the Drinking Water Council and the Ecosystem Roundtable, also exist and play a role in the overall program direction.

 

CalFed agencies are also heading towards a more permanent joint Federal-State commission to provide direction and oversight.  The agencies propose a 12-member commission, made up of equal numbers of high-level officials of the State and Federal agencies responsible for implementing CalFed programs, and a similar number of high-level stakeholder and tribal representatives. An advisory committee whose members would include qualified representatives from Indian tribes and stakeholder groups would assist the commission.

IV. Long-term CalFed Programs

After a long period of planning, deliberations, and public review and comment, CalFed issued the Phase 1 Final Report in September 1996, listing potential actions to remedy the problems in the Bay-Delta (CalFed Bay-Delta Program 2000).  The final Record of Decision was issued in August 2000, laying out the general steps to implemented to:

A. Ecosystem Restoration Program

The CalFed Ecosystem Restoration Program is an effort to improve the ecological health of the Bay Delta ecosystem with the goal of improving aquatic and terrestrial habitats.  The ecosystem restoration program covers the entire Sacramento-San Joaquin river system.  By improving the state of the watershed it is also hoped to improve water supply reliability and quality.  Some of the general projects under the ecosystem restoration program include fish screens, habitat improvements, tidal wetlands, riparian habitat, improving agricultural lands for wildlife, improving the hydraulics of the waterways for natural species, improving spawning grounds for fish, abating invasive species, and other activities.  CalFed anticipates spending over $1 billion in ecosystem restoration projects through stage one of Phase III, lasting until 2008.

B. Watershed Program

The goal of the CalFed watershed management program is to promote locally led watershed management activities that help attain the goals of CalFed for ecosystem restoration, water quality improvement, and water supply reliability.  CalFed proposes to do this by supporting groups that work throughout the Delta’s tributary watersheds, in essence throughout much of California.  CalFed assistance will come in the form of funding, coordination, and technical assistance.  Some of the projects anticipated in the watershed program are protections to control runoff and information collection for planning.  CalFed plans to establish a grant program, develop watershed program performance measures and monitoring protocols consistent with the CalFed Science Program, and establish an interagency water advisory team.  CalFed proposes spending about $300 million in the watershed program during stage one. 

C. Water Supply Reliability Program

A primary goal CalFed is the improvement of California’s water supply reliability within the context of unpredictable hydrology and the divergent needs of humans and the natural ecosystem.  Several steps will be taken to help improve water supply reliability:

·        Establish a regulatory baseline by delineating existing regulatory requirements and clarifying implementation of specific regulatory actions.

·        Establish an environmental water account with an average of 380,000 acre-feet of water annually to provide the additional water for fishery purposes beyond the regulatory baseline. 

·        Implement conjunctive management projects, conservation measures and water transfers.

 

CalFed is expected to spend $200 million for groundwater storage projects, $250 million for water quality actions and water management actions, and $180 million for water supply and water quality infrastructure projects in areas that draw supplies from the Delta.

D. Storage Program

Despite efforts at water conservation, the expansion of water storage capacity is critical to the implementation of the CalFed program.  The storage factor is critical when considering that during wet years vast amounts of excess water flow through the water systems, water which cannot be stored for drought periods.  Groundwater storage will additionally provide 500,000 to 1 million acre-feet of storage capacity.  Surface storage in the Delta region will be increased by approximately 250,000 acre-feet.  Storage in Shasta Lake will be increased by approximately 300,000 acre-feet.  Los Vaqueros reservoir will be increased by approximately 400,000 acre-feet. Total additional storage will be between 1 and 2 MAF.

E. Environmental Water Account Program

Text Box: Figure 11: Residential Water Conservation Please visit http://www.ladwp.com/water/conserv/ for information about residential water conservation programs of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power such as: · High-Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebate Program (up to $150) · Ultra-Low-Flush Toilet Rebate Program (up to $100) · Ultra-Low-Flush Toilet Exchange Program (Free ULF Toilet) · Personalized On-line Home Water Analysis Report · Water Conservation Tips for Your Business · Water Conservation Tips for Your Home · Water-Related Publications · Water Conservation Ordinance and Compliance A major goal of CalFed was to comply with the federal ESA.  This requires improving flow through the Delta for the protection of fish and other species.  This is largely anticipated to be accomplished by the creation of environmental water accounts which will reserve water for times of low flow to protect species.  The water account will be managed by existing fishery agencies: the FWS, the NMFS, and CDFG.  Initial acquisition of the assets for the water account will be made by federal and state agencies, mostly the USBR and DWR.

F. Water Use Efficiency and Conservation

Text Box: Figure 12: Agricultural Water Conservation Please visit http://www.westlandswater.org/WaterCon.htm for information about agricultural water conservation programs in Westlands Water District, such as: · Cost-Share Programs for implementing new technologies · Irrigation Guide to reducing waste · USBR Water Management Plan · Water Management Handbook · Water Quality Data The program includes both water conservation and water recycling measures.  Efficiency actions can benefit the ecosystem and improve water quality.  The Water Use Efficiency Program will build on the work of the existing Agricultural Water Management Council (AWMC) and California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC), through planning and technical assistance and targeted financial incentives (both loans and grants). The Program will work with CUWCC and AWMC to identify and implement appropriate, region-specific water conservation measures. Water conservation and recycling actions include: grant funding for agricultural and urban conservation incentives programs; expanded State and Federal programs for increased planning and technical assistance to local water suppliers; improved water management practices for wildlife areas; and directed studies and research. CalFed estimates that approximately 600,000 acre-feet in the urban sector, 300,000 acre-feet in the agricultural sector, and 300,000 acre-feet in water reclamation projects can be conserved.  CalFed estimates spending $500 million on these activities. 

G. Water Quality Program

The CalFed Program seeks continuous improvement in the water quality of the Bay-Delta system for all beneficial uses, and maintaining this quality once it is achieved.  Improvements in water quality will result in improved ecosystem health, with indirect improvements in water supply reliability. The Water Quality Program will focus on improving drinking water quality by reducing the amounts and/or impacts of bromide, total organic carbon, pathogens, nutrients, salinity and turbidity through a combination of measures that include source reduction, alternative sources of water, treatment, storage and conveyance improvements. The Program also will work to reduce impacts from pesticide use, trace metals, mercury, selenium, turbidity, sedimentation, salinity, and low dissolved oxygen.  Right now it is unclear how CalFed expects to attain these water quality goals, but the program anticipates spending $955 million on environmental and drinking water quality projects.

H. Conveyance Program

CalFed’s preferred program alternative employs a through-Delta approach to conveyance. This means continued use of the existing system with modifications and actions designed to achieve CalFed’s goals, such as: 1) construction of an operable barrier at the head of Old River to improve conditions for salmon migrating down the San Joaquin River and 2) construction of new setback levees, dredging and/or improvement of existing levees along the channels of the lower Mokelumne River downstream to the San Joaquin River.  Modifications of in-Delta conveyance will result in improved water supply reliability, protection and improvement of Delta water quality, improvements in  ecosystem health, and reduced risk of supply disruption from catastrophic breaching of Delta levees.

I. Water Transfer Program

The Water Transfer Program proposes a framework of actions, policies and processes that will facilitate water transfers and develop a statewide water transfer market, while providing protection from third-party impacts. Water transfers can improve water availability for all users, including the environment. Transfers can also help to match water demand with water sources of the appropriate quality, thus increasing the utility of water supplies.  Key components are:

·        Establish California Water Transfer Information Clearinghouse to provide information about proposed transfers, and perform research and collect data to improve understanding of water transfers and their potential effects. 

·        Require water transfer proposals to include an analysis of potential groundwater, socioeconomic, or cumulative impacts by the proposed transfers.

·        Improve accessibility of State and Federal conveyance and storage facilities for the transport of approved water transfers.

·        Establish new accounting, tracking and monitoring methods to aid in-stream flow transfers under California Water Code Section 1707.

V. Obstacles to CalFed

            Three major obstacles stand in the way of successful CalFed implementation: 1) unclear goals, 2) the cost, and 3) litigation from parties unsatisfied with CalFed’s programs.  The first problem rests in the fact that most of CalFed’s ideas are aimed at implementing programs, without clearly defining the goals of the programs.  The Water Quality Program is a perfect example, where the goals are often stated as reducing the concentrations of certain pollutants without setting clear targets.  The latter obstacles are discussed in detail below.

A. Financing an $8.5 Billion Dollar Project

The large promises CalFed makes come with a large financial burden.  Preliminary Stage 1 (through 2008) cost estimates are approximately $8.5 billion (See Figure 13, CalFed Expenditures). These estimates range in precision from specific project costs for conveyance improvements in the South Delta to broad programmatic level estimates of costs for improved water use efficiency. In addition, because of the programmatic nature of the CalFed plan and the adaptive management approach, long-term cost estimates are quite difficult to make.

 

A fundamental philosophy of the CalFed Program is that the beneficiaries of program actions should pay costs. Besides being an equitable policy, it encourages potential beneficiaries to carefully review their water and power needs and the costs of proposed programs in relation to the benefits they could receive. In the first few years of implementation, large shares of public funding will be needed to move the Program forward.  However, it is expected that beneficiaries will reimburse the public and pay for larger shares of the costs in the latter years of Stage 1.  For those programs whose benefits cannot be easily measured (such as ecosystem, water quality and watershed programs), CalFed will need to identify a procedure or strategy for estimating and allocating costs. The Financing Plan compares several different financing mechanisms, including State and Federal appropriations, State general obligation bonds, State water and power revenue bonds, private financing, user fees and a broad-based Bay-Delta system diversion fee. Although the underlying philosophy of having beneficiaries pay is nice in theory, the reality of clearly identifying the beneficiaries, particularly in the case of local parties, and having them pay will be a very difficult task. 

 

Illustrating this quandary are the federal funding problems facing CalFed in Washington, DC. On September 27, 2000 negotiations in Congress collapsed on a $20 million CalFed reauthorization bill. The measure's funding has already been reduced from $60 million. A CalFed bill included calls for more water storage and changes to a proposed environmental water account applied to users. Those were changes that Governor Davis and other CalFed supporters opposed (Friant Water Users Authority 2000).  Finally, Congress passed the new $23.6 billion energy and water appropriations bill without reauthorizing or funding CalFed.  President Clinton originally sought $60 million for the Bay-Delta program but the funding, then reduced to $20 million, ended up being stripped out. CalFed officials said state and federal agencies still may be able to work together on CalFed projects under a separate federal law that remains in effect for another several months. Funding for CalFed also continues to be available from state sources.  The Congressional and legal blows inflicted to CalFed came after the California Legislature, in its session's closing hours, failed to pass two bills that would have provided $130 million for CalFed programs and set up a CalFed commission to put the plan in place.  In May 2001, California Senators introduced new legislation in the U.S. Congress to fund CalFed.

Figure 13: CalFed Bay-Delta Program Stage 1 Projected Expenditures ($ in millions)

 

Program Year Beginning 2001
Total

Cost Sharing

Program Element

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

 

Fed

State

Other

Ecosystem Restoration

 $  270

 $  215

 $  175

 $  170

 $  170

 $  170

 $  170

 $      1,340

 $      520

 $    520

 $    300

Water Use Efficiency

 $    31

 $    62

 $  299

 $  641

 $  641

 $  641

 $  641

 $      2,956

 $      759

 $    759

 $  1,438

Water Transfers

 $      3

 $      3

 $      3

 $      2

 $      2

 $      1

 $      1

 $           15

 $         8

 $        8

 -

Watershed Management

 $    40

 $    45

 $    45

 $    45

 $    45

 $    40

 $    40

 $         300

 $      138

 $    138

 $      24

Environmental Water Account

 $    15

 $    33

 $    38

 $    48

 $    50

 $    48

 $    48

 $         280

 $       90

 $      90

 $    100

Drinking Water Quality

 $    41

 $    78

 $    82

 $  110

 $  116

 $  120

 $  128

 $         675

 $      200

 $    200

 $    275

Levees

 $    33

 $    76

 $    78

 $    82

 $    45

 $    65

 $    65

 $         444

 $      142

 $      88

 $      34

Storage

 $    50

 $    75

 $  138

 $  208

 $  266

 $  349

 $  339

 $      1,425

 $      237

 $    237

 $    200

Conveyance

 $    29

 $    66

 $  150

 $  198

 $  220

 $  160

 $    98

 $         921

 $      188

 $    381

 $    193

CalFed Science Program

 $    25

 $    30

 $    45

 $    50

 $    50

 $    50

 $    50

 $         300

 $      150

 $    150

 -

Total

 $  537

 $  683

 $1,053

 $1,554

 $1,605

 $1,644

 $1,580

 $      8,656

 $   2,432

 $  2,571

 $  2,564

B. Pending Litigation

On September 28, 2000 a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Fresno by the California Farm Bureau Federation and three growers in Fresno and Kings counties. The Farm Bureau said the action was taken to prevent farmland and water supplies from being lost. Two days earlier, the Regional Council of Rural Counties, joined by central and south Delta interests, filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court claiming the state Resources Agency violated environmental laws through the CalFed framework agreement announced in June (Friant Water Users Authority 2000). "CalFed perpetuates the same old mistakes, including the promise of water that simply isn't there even in robust years," Amador County Supervisor Tom Bamert, the counties group chairman, said. "We intend to show in court that the CalFed plans fails absolutely to meet minimal environmental mandates."

 

Much of the rural counties' concerns focus on fears the CalFed program will ultimately take away Northern California groundwater supplies. Meanwhile, the Farm Bureau suit demands an immediate halt to CalFed's land and water purchases. CalFed, according to the suit, has not adequately addressed negative environmental impacts on agriculture. The Farm Bureau also asserts CalFed 's land and water purchase programs fail to recognize contributions to wildlife and habitat that are already a part of many working farms.

 

These litigations show that in a free democratic society, wise management transcends technological solutions.  Given the alternatives offered by CalFed, various stakeholders must find a way to choose the best technological alternatives in terms of short-term and long-term social goals.

 

Module 4—Policy Processes and Outcomes

 

In this section we focus on the more positive policy lessons learned from the CalFed experience that might be applicable to situations in other countries.  These ideas are organized in two main categories: decision-making processes and programmatic approaches to problem solving.

I. Decision-Making Processes

There are several innovative approaches to making decisions that have evolved from CalFed.  Given space limitations we will focus on: 1) the CalFed Ops Group which brings state and federal agency representatives to coordinate facility operation, 2) the stakeholder process that brings many affected parties into the decision-making process, and 3) the CalFed Science Program.

A. CalFed Operations Group (Ops Group)

Members of the California Water Policy Council and the California Federal Ecosystem Directorate (CalFed) signed the Framework Agreement in 1994.  By signing this agreement, participants were committed to processes for: setting water quality standards for the Bay-Delta estuary, developing long-term solutions for the Bay-Delta, and coordinating CVP and SWP operations with endangered species, water quality, and CVPIA requirements.  The CalFed Ops group is charged with coordinating the operation of the water projects with these requirements. 

 

OPS GROUP FUNCTIONS

 

Meetings are held monthly and are open to the public with deliberations conducted in consultation with water user, environmental, and fishery representatives.  These representatives are to be present at meetings and participate fully in all deliberations.  Decisions are made by consensus of designated representatives, or designated alternates, of the CalFed agencies.  Participation of NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG in the Ops Group does not limit or constrain their authority and responsibility regarding Federal or State ESAs.  The Group has the responsibility to coordinate the SWP and CVP operations with the requirements of the SWRCB's Decision 95-6, the biological opinions for the Delta smelt and winter-run salmon, and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.  Three areas of project operations are overseen by the Ops Group:

 

1. the adjustment of export limits to minimize endangered species' take or to improve fishery conditions in general;

2. operation of the Delta Cross-channel; and

3. changes in the point of diversion to improve fishery conditions or make up losses to water supply caused by previous operational changes to improve fishery conditions. 

 

Decisions can involve changes in export rates, barrier operations, or reservoir releases that do not conflict with other operational constraints such as flood control operations, water quality parameters, or permit constraints.

 

OPS GROUP DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

 

The Ops Group must make decisions relatively quickly in order to be effective in CVP and SWP operations.  To accomplish this, a hierarchy of groups is used to try to reach consensus at the lowest possible level and assure that all Ops Group participants are informed.  The hierarchy ascends from Sub-groups, the Operations & Fisheries Forum, Ops Group and ultimately to CalFed.

 

Sub-Groups: Analyze data and propose operation actions.  A group may or may not include the CVP and SWP operators.  A sub-group can be associated with endangered species (winter-run salmon and Delta smelt), real-time fish monitoring, or be a temporary workgroup formed to address a particular operational issue. 

 

Operations & Fisheries Forum: Comprised of a representative from each of the member agencies and interested parties.  The Operations & Fisheries Forum member is responsible for being the contact person for his/her agency or interest group at any time when information regarding take of listed species, or other urgent issues need to be addressed by the Ops Group.

B. Collaborative Processes: The Bay-Delta Advisory Council and Public Input

Text Box: Figure 14: How to Do Stakeholder Involvement http://www.epa.gov/epastake/involvework.htm This web site of the U.S. EPA is a great resource. Most of the documents can be downloaded free of charge and viewed in PDF format. Below is just a sample of the documents available. · Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA: Lessons Learned, Barriers, and Innovative Approaches. This report identifies key cross-cutting lessons learned, pinpoints unique barriers and ways to overcome them, and highlights innovative approaches to stakeholder involvement and public participation. · Better Decisions Through Collaboration and Consultation: A Manual on Consultative Processes and Stakeholder Involvement offers guidance on when to use various stakeholder involvement processes and what steps to take to maximize their potential. · The Constructive Engagement Resource Guide: Practical Advice for Dialogue Among Facilities, Workers, Communities and Regulators assists potential participants and stakeholders make informed decisions about whether to get involved in a negotiated process and how best to go about it. · Introduction to the Constructive Engagement Resource Guide · The Model Plan for Public Participation developed by the Public Participation and Accountability subcommittee of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Councils is a set of recommendations for methods by which EPA can institutionalize public participation in environmental decision-making. · The Report of the Common Sense Initiative's (CSI) Stakeholder Involvement Workgroup contains an annotated list of stakeholder involvement guides and manuals.
Collaborative processes that include the general public and nongovernmental groups in decisions of the federal (and later state) government which significantly affect the human environment came about through the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).  This law requires agencies of the federal government to author an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that considers alternatives to any proposed action “affecting the quality of the human environment,” (42 USC § 4332). The California Environmental Quality Act imposes similar requirements on state agencies.  During the preparation of the EIS, the public has time to review and submit comments to the authoring agency.  The agency is required to respond to all written comments submitted.

 


This idea supplied the seed for the Bay-Delta Advisory Council.  The Bay-Delta Advisory Council (BDAC) consists of over 30 water leaders representing California stakeholder groups. BDAC is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and members are selected by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of California and appointed by the Secretary.  BDAC meets regularly to provide input and advice to the CalFed Program (See Appendix 1 for a listing of the members).  However, this is just one element of public participation (See Figure 14, How to Do Stakeholder Involvement).

C. CalFed Science Program and Adaptive Management

The CalFed Science Program provides the new information and scientific interpretations necessary to implement, monitor, and evaluate the success of CalFed Program actions and guides future decision-making. The Science Program addresses areas of uncertainty in all CalFed program elements, although some elements, such as the Ecosystem Restoration Program, rely more strongly on adaptive management than others.  The Science Program will build on the work of other State and Federal monitoring and research programs, and information will be available for use by other State, Federal, local and nongovernmental programs in the CalFed solution area. Periodically, the Science Program will undergo independent scientific review.  The Science Program has a formal staff and supplies grants to many universities, non-governmental groups, and independent consultants throughout California to carry out  activities.

 

Adaptive management is the process of refining or redefining management actions and assumptions as a process unfolds and results are obtained (See Figure 15, Definitions of Adaptive Management).  The process allows for the injection of new information as it becomes available.  It begins with a set of clearly defined goals and objectives, incorporating all present knowledge but includes the flexibility to adapt to new experience and knowledge.  Despite the apparent logic of this approach many government programs are rather set from start and incorporating new knowledge is difficult.  Therefore the adaptive management approach is quite new and will help to combat the large degree of uncertainty and insufficient knowledge that surround the management of water.  Adaptive management will be extensively used in the Ecosystem Restoration and Watershed Programs of CalFed.

II. Programmatic Approaches to Problem Solving

There are several interesting programmatic approaches to resolving Bay-Delta water issues that CalFed has put forward. 

A.  Ecosystem Restoration

The concept of ecosystem restoration in CalFed is addressed in detail by the documents available at http://calfed.ca.gov/ecosystem_rest.html.  Another great resource is U.S. EPA’s Watershed Protection web site http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/.

Text Box: Figure 15: Definitions of Adaptive Management (Adapted from the Forest Service of British Columbia) Adaptive management has been defined in various ways since its development in the early 1970s. Different people and organizations continue to have somewhat differing views of the best definition for their purposes. One definition for "adaptive management" is as follows: Adaptive management is a systematic process for continually improving management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of operational programs. Its most effective form–"active" adaptive management–employs management programs that are designed to experimentally compare selected policies or practices, by evaluating alternative hypotheses about the system being managed. One way of portraying the adaptive management process is as six-step cycle, emphasizing that successful adaptive management requires managers to complete all six steps: Some of the differentiating characteristics of adaptive management are: 1. acknowledgement of uncertainty about what policy or practice is "best" for the particular management issue, 2. thoughtful selection of the policies or practices to be applied (the assessment and design stages of the cycle), 3. careful implementation of a plan of action designed to reveal the critical knowledge that is currently lacking, 4. monitoring of key response indicators, 5. analysis of the management outcomes in consideration of the original objectives, and 6. incorporation of the results into future decisions. Some other resources on Adaptive Management Bormann, B.T., P.G. Cunningham, M.H. Brookes, V.W. Manning, and M.W. Collopy. 1993. Adaptive ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-341. 22 pages. Halbert, C.L. 1993. How adaptive is adaptive management? Implementing adaptive management in Washington State and British Columbia. Reviews in Fisheries Science 1:261-283. Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington, DC. Lee, K.N. and J. Lawrence. 1986. Adaptive management: Learning from the Columbia River basin fish and wildlife program. Environmental Law 16: 431-460. Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound. 1995. Sustainable Ecosystem Management in Clayoquot Sound: Planning and practices. Victoria, BC. 296 pages.
 


B. Water Transfers

Although we do not have the time to discuss in detail the process of water transfers, there is a document available from the SWRCB on the Internet.  The Guide to Water Transfers is intended to help parties understand the processes involved and the information needed to complete water transfers in California. It was produced to help foster voluntary transfers of water through a better understanding of the California Water Code and the existing regulations that govern water transfers. This information is provided in an effort to make information available to assist parties planning and reviewing proposed water transfers. 

 

This Guide to Water Transfers is available on the Internet through the SWRCB, Division of Water Rights web site at http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/ under water rights information.

 

On Tap (http://ontap.ca.gov/) is an online water market information source being developed as part of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. It is designed to supply potential water transaction participants, affected third parties, and other interested parties with information to assist the efficient transfer of water. On Tap is continuously evolving as new information becomes available and public information needs are identified. The web site initially provides an interactive guide and database that allows users to better understand the water transaction process and to research historic water transactions within California.

C. Integrated Storage Investigations

The CalFed Bay-Delta Program is also developing a balanced, integrated water management strategy. The water management strategy assures that all available water resources management tools, including water use efficiency, water transfers, conveyance facilities, and groundwater and surface storage opportunities, will be used to achieve CalFed’s water supply reliability goals. The proper role of storage in the context of this water management framework will be evaluated in a comprehensive fashion as part of the Integrated Storage Investigation (ISI).  Specifically, the ISI will evaluate surface storage, groundwater storage, power facility reoperation and the potential for conjunctive operation of these different types of storage. Additionally, the nature of these investigations will provide an important opportunity to prepare a comprehensive assessment and prioritization of critical fish migration barriers for modification or removal.

 

The investigation will evaluate these elements both on a Bay-Delta system scale using currently available system modeling tools and on a local scale with more detailed modeling tools. It must assure that proposals for system changes take into consideration regional, as well as statewide water management objectives. For example, reoperation of power generation facilities if done conjunctively with downstream water supply reservoirs, as well as groundwater banking, may avoid impacts or in fact enhance overall benefits. Therefore, the development of regional strategies for water resources management will be an important work effort linking the study elements, which will require more detailed evaluation of local hydrologic conditions and interactions than can be provided by the large scale models.

 

Module 5—Impacts and Lessons Learned

I. Conclusions: What Can Be Learned from CalFed?

Although the implementation and success of CalFed may be most limited by its monetary and bureaucratic size, the goals of CalFed and its individual programs represent a pioneering approach to resolving the State’s water issues.  CalFed will invariably be instructive for both its potential failures and its likely successes.

 

Several clear obstacles threaten CalFed implementation, including: unclear leadership, unclear financial responsibility, and vague goals.  These issues are central to the success of any major action of environmental management where multiple parties are involved.  Even in collaborative settings such as CalFed, a clear leader must be identified, especially when periodic funding for the project must be guided through state and national legislatures.  CalFed benefited from several charismatic leaders and advisors such as the Secretary of the Department of Interior and the Regional Director of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bruce Babbitt and Lester Snow, respectively).  However, the project has clearly begun to slow with a new presidential administration and the departure of these leaders.

 

            The anticipated expenditures of CalFed are high and funding has not been approved by the state legislature of California and the U.S. Congress.  This is largely due to the overall cost of the project  which many legislators likely find objectionable.  This problem has been compounded by unclear financial responsibility.  Large portions of CalFed funding are to come from “Other” groups, groups which may be hard to identify.  Although CalFed will likely strive to resolve this issue with time, it is peculiar to some people why this issue was not addressed more clearly in the planning documents to date.

 

            Following closely with unclear financial responsibility and unclear leadership, CalFed’s goals, while admirable, are very hard to quantify or evaluate.  Most people would agree that to anticipate expenditures of nearly 1 billion dollars for the Water Quality Program and not have tangible goals that can be evaluated, and for which progress can be measured, is somewhat wishful.  There are many different approaches to solving water quality problems and if CalFed cannot reliably detect progress toward reaching a goal, it leads one to wonder whether or not this significant funding may be better used for other purposes.  Adaptive Management may help in this area but it will still be limited by the absence of measurable goals.

 

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, CalFed makes perhaps too many assumptions about the current regulatory state of water in California.  The system, largely in the form of unquantified rights to surface water and groundwater, is a difficult foundation upon which to build future policy.  This is largely the same system that was put into place early this century.  Other U.S. states have radically restructured state policy in the past two to three decades, particularly in the quantification of rights to groundwater and surface water (Smith and University of New Mexico. School of Law 1984; University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center. Summer Program (8th : 1987 : Boulder Colo.) 1987; Bokum 1996; Lusk 1998).  This system of unquantified rights, along with gaps in the monitoring of groundwater, represent great uncertainties in CalFed.  CalFed might be overlooking options or underestimating the potential impacts of its proposed actions.  California’s system of water management is still highly compartmentalized and efforts at broader state coordination and management, particularly in the area of water quality, will require some degree of restructuring for programs such as CalFed to be successful.

 

Despite these obstacles to CalFed implementation, there are several positive creativities in CalFed that we have learned.

 

Although the collaborative, multi-lateral, stakeholder processes in CalFed might be too much of a good thing, this approach will be essential to ensuring the durability of any outcome (Rieke 1996).  In California, as with many regions, fragile partnerships are subject to the objections of many groups.  In many places, government agencies, businesses, non-governmental groups, and other parties have the ability to weaken or eliminate potential projects.  Protests, the removal of investments, and lawsuits can affect the outcome.  Although CalFed does face a couple of lawsuits, these challenges are quite small given the scope of CalFed.  By simply giving many groups a seat at the table of the Bay-Delta Advisory Committee,  many lawsuits and political attacks were likely avoided.  Perhaps more importantly, the process led to the incorporation of a large array of ideas into the final product, hopefully leading to better solutions.

 

Cooperation has been visibly successful with the early actions of the CalFed Program in the Ops Group, such as the coordination between the federal USBR and the California DWR.  Cooperation among government agencies is a difficult task in many countries, but coordination when overlapping responsibilities exist is needed.  Opportunities in countries will vary, but often overlooked opportunities for cooperation in terms of data-sharing, planning, and project coordination are often present; and efforts can be initiated at many levels of management.  In California, cooperation between DWR and USBR in the operation of their respective water projects was critical to reaching the most appropriate management of the Bay-Delta, cooperation that was not formalized until the early 1990s. 

 

However, we must realize that although this cooperation is good, it would not exist if there were not underlying incentives for parties to participate (Rieke 1996).  In order to assure that long-term public interests are served by our water management in California, incentive systems must be maintained and improved.  The major incentives for bringing people to the table were regulatory, in the form of the CWA and ESA, laws which demonstrated the flaws in the current way of doing things.  However, incentives to move past regulatory baselines are key.  Regulations are a starting point, but many issues such as controlling nonpoint source pollution or encouraging water conservation cannot be achieved by regulations alone.

 

In this area CalFed has done well to foster other systems of management that are reliant on non-regulatory incentives.  Water transfers may prove a sufficient way of providing economic incentives to move water from one sector to another.  Grant programs in both the urban and agricultural sectors are improving efficiency by encouraging better technologies that use less water, such as sprinkler irrigation and low-flow water fixtures in houses.  In the end, it will likely become even more apparent that a diverse assortment of programs, both regulatory and non-regulatory, will be necessary to achieve the goals of CalFed and programs like it.

 

California, as many regions, is forced to contend with two major constraints in water management, increasing demand and a relatively fixed supply.  Thus, there must be an ability to reallocate water to balance the supply against the demands that best serve the public interests of the state, while all the time being observant of the property rights of existing users.  Solving this quandary requires not only the advent of new technologies to maximize our efficiency, but equal effort must also be given to the process by which we make decisions regarding this reallocation of water. 

 

 

 

 

 

Module 6—Exercises

Activity 1: Analysis of the CalFed Process

Based on what you have read and on your own field of expertise, we would like you to analyze CalFed’s potential successes and failures. 

 

Here are a few questions to get started:

 

 

 

Activity 2: Develop a Collaborative Process

For this exercise you can likely identify a problem confronting you or your organization that would likely benefit from coordination and participation across government agencies or from public input in the decision-making process.  The task is write up a short plan to facilitate cooperation among government agencies or improve public participation.

 

Here are a few questions to get started:

 

 

Activity 3: Design a Training Course

The purpose of this exercise is to identify some sources of information and create a course to teach a particular skill, such as ecosystem restoration, to a wider audience. 

 

 

 

References

Bokum, C. (1996). “Implementing the Public Welfare Requirement in New Mexico's Water Code.” Natural Resources Journal, University of New Mexico School of Law Fall 1996.

CalFed Bay-Delta Program (1999). Commonly Asked Questions about the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Sacramento, CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

CalFed Bay-Delta Program (2000). CalFed Bay-Delta Program Summary August 2000. Sacramento, CalFed Bay-Delta Program,: 50.

CalFed Bay-Delta Program (2000). California's Water Future: A Framework for Action. Sacramento, CalFed Bay-Delta Program,: 52.

Carson, R. (1994). Silent spring. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.

Court of Appeal, F. D., Division 1, California, (1986). United States of America v. State Water Resources Control Board. 182 Cal.App.3d 82. P. J. RACANELLI. CA.

Department of Water Resources (1979). The California Water Atlas. California, State of California.

Department of Water Resources (1998). Bulletin 160-98: California Water Plan Update. Sacramento, State of California.

Department of Water Resources (1999). State Water Project Facts, Department of Water Resources. 1999.

Friant Water Users Authority (2000). “Woes Mount for Calfed.” Friant Waterline October 2000.

Letey, J., C. Roberts, et al. (1986). An Agricultural Dilemma: Drainage Water and Toxics Disposal in the San Joaquin Valley. Oakland, University of California.

Lusk, S. E. H. (1998). “Texas Groundwater: Reconciling the Rule of Capture with Environmental and Community Demands.” St. Mary's Law Journal.

Narasimhan, T. N. and N. W. T. Quinn (1996). Agriculture, Irrigation, and Drainage, on the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley, California: Unified Perspective on Hydrogeology, Geochemistry, and Management. Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California: 1-85.

Rieke, E. A. (1996). “The Bay-Delta Accord: A Stride Toward Sustainability.” Colorado Law Review 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 341.

Rogers, H. E. and A. H. Nichols (1967). Water for California: planning, law & practice, finance. San Francsco,, Bancroft-Whitney.

Smith, Z. A. and University of New Mexico. School of Law (1984). “Centralized decisionmaking in the administration of groundwater rights : the experience of Arizona, California and New Mexico and suggestions for the future.” Natural resources journal: [641]-688.

Strauss, J. D. and G. H. Murphy (1956). California Water Law in Perspective.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1999). Central Valley Project Facts, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1999.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims (2001). Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. The United States. 98-101 L. Wiese. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (1997). Census of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture,. 2000.

University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center. Summer Program (8th : 1987 : Boulder Colo.) (1987). Water as a Public Resource : Emerging Rights and Obligations. Eighth annual summer program, Boulder, Colo., The Center.

Appendices

1. Bay-Delta Advisory Council Members

Name

Affiliation

Gene Andreuccetti

California Waterfowl Association

Tib Belza

Northern California Water Association

Roberta Borgonovo

League of Women Voters of California

Don Bransford

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

Byron Buck

California Urban Water Agencies

Eze Burts

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Tom Decker

California Chamber of Commerce

Hap Dunning

The Bay Institute

Torri Estrada

The Urban Habitat Program

Jack Foley

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Roger Fontes

Northern California Power Agency

Howard Frick

Friant Water Authority/Arvin Edison Water Supply District

Tom Graff

Environmental Defense Fund

Martha Guzman

United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO

Steve Hall

Association of California Water Agencies

Eric Hasseltine

Contra Costa Council

Alex Hildebrand

South Delta Water Agency

Richard Izmirian

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

Rosemary Kamei

Santa Clara Valley Water District

Mike Madigan*

San Diego County Water Authority/City of San Diego

Sunne McPeak**

Bay Area Council

Robert Meacher

Regional Council of Rural Counties

Ann Notthoff

Natural Resources Defense Council

Pietro Parravano

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association

Stuart Pyle

Kern County Water Agency

Bob Raab

Save San Francisco Bay Association

Judith Redmond

Community Alliance with Family Farmers

Marcia Sablan

City of Firebaugh

Mike Schaver

Big Valley band of Pomo Indians

Brenda Jahns Southwick

California Farm Bureau Federation

Frances Spivey-Weber

Mono Lake Committee

Mike Stearns

San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority

Roger Thomas

Golden Gate Fishermen's Association

Stephen Zapoticzny

Monsanto Corp. / Southern California Water Committee

 

 

2. Species of Concern

Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Species of Concern in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Federal listing effective January 31, 1992; State listing effective April 9, 1992) The Plants and Invertebrates were omitted for space considerations.  SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened; SR = State Rare FE = Federal  Endangered; FT = Federal Threatened; FC = Federal Candidate

 

Fish

Winter-run Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (SE,FT)

Sacramento Splittail, Pogonichthys macrolepidotus (FC)

Delta Smelt, Hypomesus transpaciJicus (FT, 4/93)

Green Sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris

Sacramento Perch (native population), Archoplites inrerrup- tus

Sacramento Blackfish, Orthodon microlepidotus

Hardhead, Mylopharodon conocephalus

Longfin Smelt, Spirinchus thaleichthys

 

Birds

Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (SE, FE)

Tricolored Blackbird, Agelaius tricolor

American Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum (SE, FC)

Califonia Clapper Rail, Rallus longirostris obsoletus (SE, FE)

Swainson's Hawk, Bueteo swinsoni (ST, FC)

Greater Sandhill Crane, Grus canadensis tabida (ST)

California Black Rail, Laterallus jamaicensis cotumiculus (ST, FC)

California Least Tern, Sterna albifrons browni (SE, FE)

Calif. Yellow-Billed Cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus Occidentalis (ST, FC)

California Brown Pelican, Pelecanus occidentalis califonzicus (SE, FE)

 

Mammals

San Joaquin Kit Fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica (ST, FE)

Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Reithrodontomys raviventris (SE, FC)

Riparian Brush Rabbit, Sylvilagus bachmani riparius

San Joaquin Valley Woodrat, Neotomafuscipes riparia

San Pablo California Vole, Microtus califomicus sanpabloensis

Pacific Western Big-eared Bat, PEecotus townsendii townsendii

Salt Marsh Vagrant Shrew, Sorex vagrans halicoetes

Suisun Ornate Shrew, Sorex omatus sinuosus

San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat, Neotomafuscipes annectens

 

Reptiles

Giant Garter Snake, Thamnophis Gigas

Northwestern Pond Turtle, Clemmmys mannorata mannorata

Alameda Whip Snake, Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus (ST)

 

Amphibians

California Red-legged Frog, Rana aurora draytonii

Califonia Tiger Salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum californiense

Western Spadefoot Toad, Scaphiopus hammondi hammondi


3. Glossary of Terms

AF: Abbreviation for acre feet; the volume of water that would cover one acre to a depth of one foot, or 325,851 gallons of water. On average, could supply 1-2 households with water for a year.

Alternative: A collection of actions or action categories assembled to provide a comprehensive solution to problems in the Bay-Delta system.

Action: A structure, operating criteria, program, regulation, policy, or restoration activity that is intended to address a problem or resolve a conflict in the Bay-Delta system.

Action Category  A set of similar actions. For example, all new or expanded off-stream storage might be placed into a single action category.

Anadromous Fish: Fish that spend a part of their life cycle in the sea and return to freshwater streams to spawn.

Best Management Practices (BMP)  An urban water conservation measure that the California Urban Water Conservation Council agrees to implement among member agencies.

Central Valley Project (CVP): Federally operated water management and conveyance system that provides water agricultural, urban, and industrial users in California.

CFS: An abbreviation for cubic feet per second.

Conveyance: A pipeline, canal, natural channel or other similar facility that transports water from one location to another.

Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA)       : This federal legislation, signed into law on October 30, 1992, mandates major changes in the management of the federal Central Valley Project. The CVPIA puts fish and wildlife on an equal footing with agricultural, municipal, industrial, and hydropower users.

Common Delta Pool: The common pool concept suggest that the Delta provides a common resource, including fresh water supply for all Delta water users, and all those whose actions have an impact on the Delta environment share in the obligation to restore, maintain, and protect Delta resources, including water supplies, water quality, and natural habitat.

Conjunctive Use: Integrated management of surface water and groundwater supplies to meet overall water supply and resource management objectives.

Delta Islands: Islands in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta protected by levees. Delta Islands provide space for numbers functions including agriculture, communities, and important infrastructure such as power plants, transmission lines, pipelines, and roadways.

Diversions: The action of taking water out of a river system or changing the flow of water in a system for use in another location.

Ecosystem: A recognizable, relatively homogeneous unit that includes organisms, their environment, and all the interactions among them.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): Federal legislation that provides protection for species that are in danger of extinction.

Exotic Species: Also called introduced species; refers to plants and animals that originate elsewhere and migrate or are brought into a new area, where they may dominate the local species or in some way negatively impact the environment for native species.

Fish Screens: Physical structures placed at water diversion facilities to keep fish from getting pulled into the facility and dying there.

Groundwater Banking: Using available storage capacity within ground water basins to sore surface water that is recharged during periods when it is available (e.g. during peak flood flows).

Isolated Conveyance Facility: A canal or pipeline that transports water between two different locations while keeping it separate from Delta water.

MAF: An abbreviation for million acre feet.

Meander Belt: Protecting and preserving land in the vicinity of a river channel in order to allow the river to meander. Meander belts are a way to allow the development of natural habitat around a river.

Real-Time Monitoring: Continuous observation in multiple locations of biological conditions on site in order to adjust water management operations to protect fish species and allow optimal operation of the water supply system.

Riparian The strip of land adjacent to a natural water course such as a river or stream. Often supports vegetation that provides the best fish habitat values when growing large enough to overhand the bank.

Riverine: Habitat within or alongside a river or channel.

Setback Levee: A constructed embankment to prevent flooding that is positioned some distance from the edge of the river or channel. Setback levees allow wildlife habitat to develop between the levee and the river or stream.

Shallow Water: Water with little enough depth to allow for sunlight penetration, plant growth, and the development of small organisms that function as fish food. Serves as spawning areas for Delta smelt.

Solution Principles: Fundamental principles that guide the development and evaluation of Program Alternative. They provide an overall measure of acceptability of the alternatives.

State Water Project (SWP): A state operated water management and conveyance system that provides water to agricultural, urban, and industrial users in California.

TAF: An abbreviation for thousand acre feet.

Terrestrial: Types of species of animal and plant wildlife that live on or grow from the land.

Water Conservation: Practices that encourage consumers to reduce the use of water. The extent to which these practices actually create a saving sin water depends on the total or basin-wide use of water.

Water Reclamation: Practices that capture, treat and reuse water. The waste water is treated to meet health and safety standards depending on its intended use.

Water Transfers: Voluntary water transactions conduced under state law and in keeping with federal regulations. The agency most involved is the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

Watershed: An area that drains ultimately to a particular channel or river, usually bounded peripherally by a natural divide of some kind such as a hill, ridge, or mountain.

 

4. List of Acronyms

BDAC: Bay-Delta Advisory Council

CEDR: California Center for Environmental Design Research

CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act

COE: Army Corps of Engineers

CUWA/AG: California Urban Water Agency/Agricultural Water Users

CVP: Central Valley Project

CVPIA: Central Valley Project Improvement Act

CWA: Clean Water Act

CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game

DLMSP: Delta Levees Maintenance Subvention Program

DWR: Department of Water Resources

EIR: Environmental Impact Report

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

ERPP: Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan

ESA: Endangered Species Act

FED: Federal Ecosystem Directorate

GIS: Geographic Information Systems

IEP: Interagency Ecological Program

MAF: Million Acre-Feet

MWD: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service

REGIS: Research Program in Environmental Planning and Geographic Information Systems

SB-34: Delta Flood Protection Act of 1988

SFCP: Special Flood Control Projects

SMPA: Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement

SWP: State Water Project

SWRCB: State Water Resources Control Board

TAF: Thousand Acre-Feet

USBR: United States Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service

5. Internet Links

CalFed Bay-Delta Program http://CalFed.ca.gov/

California Environmental Protection Agency http://www.calepa.ca.gov

State Water Resources Control Board http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/

California Resource Agency http://ceres.ca.gov/CRA/

California Department of Fish and Game http://www.dfg.ca.gov/

California Department of Water Resources http://wwwdwr.water.ca.gov/

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation http://www.usbr.gov/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service http://www.fws.gov/

U.S. Geological Survey http://www.usgs.gov/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) http://www.epa.gov/

Water Education Foundation http://www.water-ed.org/

Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)  http://www.acwanet.com/

California Farm Water Coalition   http://www.cfwc.com/

State Water Contractors   http://www.swc.org/

WaterReuse Association of California  http://www.watereuse.org/



 

 

 

6. Unit Conversions

Units

Metric Equivalent

US Equivalent

acre

0.404 hectares

43,560 feet^2

acre

4,046,856 4 meters^2

4,840 yards^2

acre

0.004 kilometers^2

0.001562 miles^2,

acre-foot

1233 meters^3

one acre filled to a depth of one foot

cubic feet per second

0.028 m^3/sec

 

degrees, Celsius

(water boils at 100 degrees C, freezes at 0 degrees C) by 1.8 to obtain degrees C

multiply by 1.8 and add 32 to obtain degrees F degrees, Fahrenheit subtract 32 and divide water boils at 212 degrees F, freezes at 32 degrees F)

foot

30.48 centimeters

12 inches

foot

0.304 8 meters

0.333 333 3 yards

foot

0.000 304 8 kilometers

0.000 189 39 miles, statute

foot^2

929.030 4 centimeters^2