Description: Adjudication is a form of groundwater management in California through the courts. When groundwater resources do not meet water demands in an area, landowners may turn to the courts to determine how much groundwater can be rightfully extracted by each overlying landowner or appropriator. The court typically appoints a Watermaster to administer the judgment and to periodically report to the court. As of 2017 there were 29 adjudicated groundwater basins in California, with the majority of the adjudications located in Southern California in the South Coast hydrologic region. The majority of groundwater rights adjudications in California imposes extraction limits and/or initiates management actions in the event of declining groundwater levels or water quality degradation. It should be noted that the primary objective of an adjudication is to provide a proportionate share of the available groundwater to the users within the basin so it can be extracted without having adverse effects to existing groundwater supplies. Environmental concerns were not considered when most of the judgments were written. Areas designated to be treated as adjudicated areas as defined in Water Code Section 10720.8
Copyright Text: DWR, Watermasters of adjudicated areas in groundwater basins
Description: ***** BACKGROUND *****In late 1996, the Dept of Conservation (DOC) surveyed state and federal agencies about the county boundary coverage they used. As a result, DOC adopted the 1:24,000 (24K) scale U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) dataset (USGS source) for their Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) but with several modifications. Detailed documentation of these changes is provided by FMMP and included in the lineage section of the metadata. A dataset named cnty24k97_1 was made available (approximately 2004) through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CDF - FRAP) and the California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL). In late 2006, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) reviewed cnty24k97_1. Comparisons were made to a high-quality 100K dataset (co100a/county100k from the former Teale Data Center GIS Solutions Group) and legal boundary descriptions from ( http://www.leginfo.ca.gov ). The cnty24k97_1 dataset was missing Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands. DFG added the missing islands using previously-digitized coastline data (coastn27 of State Lands Commission origin), corrected a few county boundaries, built region topology, added additional attributes, and renamed the dataset to county24k. In 2007, the California Mapping Coordinating Committee (CMCC) requested that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) resume stewardship of the statewide county boundaries data. CAL FIRE adopted the changes made by DFG and collected additional suggestions for the county data from DFG, DOC, and local government agencies. CAL FIRE incorporated these suggestions into the latest revision, which has was renamed cnty24k09_1. ***** THIS VERSION*****This version of the county dataset was created as a result of an effort to improve the coastal linework. It uses the previous interior linework from the cnty24k13_1 data, but replaces the coastal linework (including islands and inlets) based on NOAA's ERMA coastal dataset (which used NAIP 2010). In addition to the improved linework, additional coding was added to differentiate inlets and bays, islands, and manmade structures such as piers and breakers. Note that some of this coding may not be featured in this specific dataset.This dataset is one of several available datasets that were created as a group designed to work in topological sync with each other. These "paired" datasets include a full county dataset (cnty18_2_full), a basic state dataset (state18_2), an ocean dataset (ocean18_2), and country/state datasets (both full and neighbor-only - cntrystate18_2_full and cntrystate18_2_neighbor, respectively). Further details about these paired datasets can be found in their respective metadata. This specific dataset represents the basic (ie simplified) county dataset without the extra coding that can be found in the "full" dataset. In this dataset, all bays (plus bay islands and constructed features) are merged into the mainland, and coastal features (such as islands and constructed features) are not included. In October 2018, the dataset was adjusted to include a correction in the Fresno-Madera county boundary based on documents recorded in the Madera County Assessor's Office to be a Madera parcel (049-102-004) located in Madera County not in Fresno County. This change constitutes the difference between the 18_2 and 18_1 versions of this dataset.In March 2018, the dataset was adjusted to include a legal boundary change between Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties (December 11, 1998) as stated in Resolution No. 98-11 (Santa Clara) and Resolution No. 432-98 (Santa Cruz). This change constitutes the diffrence between the 18_1 and 15_1 versions of this dataset.In November 2015, the dataset was adjusted to include a change in the Yuba-Placer county boundary from 2010 that was not yet included in the 14_1 version of the dataset (ord No 5546-B). This change constitutes the diffrence between the 15_1 and 14_1 versions of this dataset.
Copyright Text: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Conservation, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Description: Archived on 20181227 and the name was changed from SDE.i03_CaliforniaCounties to atlas_arch.SDE.i03_CaliforniaCounties_20181227***** BACKGROUND *****In late 1996, the Dept of Conservation (DOC) surveyed state and federal agencies about the county boundary coverage they used. As a result, DOC adopted the 1:24,000 (24K) scale U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) dataset (USGS source) for their Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) but with several modifications. Detailed documentation of these changes is provided by FMMP and included in the lineage section of the metadata. A dataset named cnty24k97_1 was made available (approximately 2004) through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CDF - FRAP) and the California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL). In late 2006, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) reviewed cnty24k97_1. Comparisons were made to a high-quality 100K dataset (co100a/county100k from the former Teale Data Center GIS Solutions Group) and legal boundary descriptions from ( http://www.leginfo.ca.gov ). The cnty24k97_1 dataset was missing Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands. DFG added the missing islands using previously-digitized coastline data (coastn27 of State Lands Commission origin), corrected a few county boundaries, built region topology, added additional attributes, and renamed the dataset to county24k. In 2007, the California Mapping Coordinating Committee (CMCC) requested that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) resume stewardship of the statewide county boundaries data. CAL FIRE adopted the changes made by DFG and collected additional suggestions for the county data from DFG, DOC, and local government agencies. CAL FIRE incorporated these suggestions into the latest revision, which has was renamed cnty24k09_1. ***** THIS VERSION*****This version of the county dataset was created as a result of an effort to improve the coastal linework. It uses the previous interior linework from the cnty24k13_1 data, but replaces the coastal linework (including islands and inlets) based on NOAA's ERMA coastal dataset (which used NAIP 2010). In addition to the improved linework, additional coding was added to differentiate inlets and bays, islands, and manmade structures such as piers and breakers. This dataset is one of several available datasets that were created as a group designed to work in topological sync with each other. These "paired" datasets include a basic county dataset (cnty15_1_basic), a basic state dataset (state15_1), an ocean dataset (ocean15_1), and country/state datasets (both full and neighbor-only - cntrystate15_1_full and cntrystate15_1_neighbor, respectively). Further details about these paired datasets can be found in their respective metadata. This specific datasetrepresents the full detailed county dataset with all coding (islands, inlets, constructed features, etc). The user has the freedom to use this coding to create definition queries, symbolize, or dissolve to create a more generalized dataset as needed.In November 2015, the dataset was adjusted to include a change in the Yuba-Placer county boundary from 2010 that was not yet included in the 14_1 version of the dataset (ord No 5546-B). This change constitutes the diffrence between the 15_1 and 14_1 versions of this dataset.
Copyright Text: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Conservation, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Description: Detailed Analysis Unit-(DAU) Convergence via County Boundary cnty18_1 for Cal-Fire, (*See metadata for CAL-FIRE cnty18_1), State of California. The existing DAU boundaries were aligned with cnty18_1 feature class.Originally a collaboration by Department of Water Resources, Region Office personnel, Michael L. Serna, NRO, Jason Harbaugh - NCRO, Cynthia Moffett - SCRO and Robert Fastenau - SRO with the final merge of all data into a cohesive feature class to create i03_DAU_COUNTY_cnty24k09 alignment which has been updated to create i03_DAU_COUNTY_cnty18_1.This version was derived from a preexisting “dau_v2_105, 27, i03_DAU_COUNTY_cnty24k09” Detailed Analysis Unit feature class's and aligned with Cal-Fire's 2018 boundary.Manmade structures such as piers and breakers, small islands and coastal rocks have been removed from this version. Inlets waters are listed on the coast only.These features are reachable by County\DAU. This allows the county boundaries, the DAU boundaries and the State of California Boundary to match Cal-Fire cnty18_1.DAU BackgroundThe first investigation of California's water resources began in 1873 when President Ulysses S. Grant commissioned an investigation by Colonel B. S. Alexander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The state followed with its own study in 1878 when the State Engineer's office was created and filled by William Hammond Hall. The concept of a statewide water development project was first raised in 1919 by Lt. Robert B. Marshall of the U.S. Geological Survey. In 1931, State Engineer Edward Hyatt introduced a report identifying the facilities required and the economic means to accomplish a north-to-south water transfer. Called the "State Water Plan", the report took nine years to prepare. To implement the plan, the Legislature passed the Central Valley Act of 1933, which authorized the project. Due to lack of funds, the federal government took over the CVP as a public works project to provide jobs and its construction began in 1935.In 1945, the California Legislature authorized an investigation of statewide water resources and in 1947, the California Legislature requested that an investigation be conducted of the water resources as well as present and future water needs for all hydrologic regions in the State. Accordingly, DWR and its predecessor agencies began to collect the urban and agricultural land use and water use data that serve as the basis for the computations of current and projected water uses. The work, conducted by the Division of Water Resources (DWR’s predecessor) under the Department of Public Works, led to the publication of three important bulletins: Bulletin 1 (1951), "Water Resources of California," a collection of data on precipitation, unimpaired stream flows, flood flows and frequency, and water quality statewide; Bulletin 2 (1955), "Water Utilization and Requirements of California," estimates of water uses and forecasts of "ultimate" water needs; and Bulletin 3 (1957), "The California Water Plan," plans for full practical development of California’s water resources, both by local projects and a major State project to meet the State's ultimate needs. (**See brief addendum below** “The Development of Boundaries for Hydrologic Studies for the Sacramento Valley Region”)DWR subdivided California into study areas for planning purposes. The largest study areas are the ten hydrologic regions (HR), corresponding to the State’s major drainage basins. The next levels of delineation are the Planning Areas (PA), which in turn are composed of multiple detailed analysis units (DAU). The DAUs are often split by county boundaries, so are the smallest study areas used by DWR. The DAU/counties are used for estimating water demand by agricultural crops and other surfaces for water resources planning. Under current guidelines, each DAU/County has multiple crop and land-use categories. Many planning studies begin at the DAU or PA level, and the results are aggregated into hydrologic regions for presentation.Since 1950 DWR has conducted over 250 land use surveys of all or parts of California's 58 counties. Early land use surveys were recorded on paper maps of USGS 7.5' quadrangles. In 1986, DWR began to develop georeferenced digital maps of land use survey data, which are available for download. Long term goals for this program is to survey land use more frequently and efficiently using satellite imagery, high elevation digital imagery, local sources of data, and remote sensing in conjunction with field surveys.There are currently 58 counties and 278 DAUs in California.Due to some DAUs being split by county lines, the total number of DAU’s identifiable via DAU by County is 782.**ADDENDUM**The Development of Boundaries for Hydrologic Studies for the Sacramento Valley Region[Detailed Analysis Units made up of a grouping of the Depletion Study Drainage Areas (DSA) boundaries occurred on the Eastern Foothills and Mountains within the Sacramento Region. Other DSA’s were divided into two or more DAU’s; for example, DSA 58 (Redding Basin) was divided into 3 DAU’s; 143,141, and 145. Mountain areas on both the east and west side of the Sacramento River below Shasta Dam went from ridge top to ridge top, or topographic highs. If available, boundaries were set adjacent to stream gages located at the low point of rivers and major creek drainages.Later, as the DAU’s were developed, some of the smaller watershed DSA boundaries in the foothill and mountain areas were grouped. The Pit River DSA was split so water use in the larger valleys (Alturas area, Big Valley, Fall River Valley, Hat Creek) could be analyzed. A change in the boundary of the Sacramento Region mountain area occurred at this time when Goose Lake near the Oregon State Line was included as part of the Sacramento Region.The Sacramento Valley Floor hydrologic boundary was at the edge of the alluvial soils and slightly modified to follow the water bearing sediments to a depth of 200 feet or more. Stream gages were located on incoming streams and used as an exception to the alluvial soil boundary. Another exception to the alluvial boundary was the inclusion of the foothills between Red Bluff and the Redding Basin. Modifications of the valley floor exterior boundary were made to facilitate analysis; some areas at the northern end of the valley followed section lines or other established boundaries.Valley floor boundaries, as originally shown in Bulletin 2, Water Utilization and Requirements of California, 1955 were based on physical topographic features such as ridges even if they only rise a few feet between basins and/or drainage areas. A few boundaries were based on drainage canals. The Joint DWR-USBR Depletion Study Drainage Areas (DSA) used drainage areas where topographic highs drained into one drainage basin. Some areas were difficult to study, particularly in areas transected by major rivers. Depletion Study Drainage Areas containing large rivers were separated into two DAU’s; one on each side of the river. This made it easier to analyze water source, water supply, and water use and drainage outflow from the DAU.Many of the DAUs that consist of natural drainage basins have stream gages located at outfall gates, which provided an accurate estimate of water leaving the unit. Detailed Analysis Units based on political boundaries or other criteria are much more difficult to analyze than those units that follow natural drainage basins.]**END ADDENDUM**FieldsData TypeDescriptionACRESDoubleAcres of Polygonal Feature –Not DynamicCountiesTextCounties (DAU)COUNTY NAMETextCounty Name, CountyCOUNTY_ABBREVTextCounty Abbreviation COUNTY_CODETextCalifornia County CodeCOUNTY_FIPSTextFIPS (Federal Information Processing Standards) Multiple County coverage. 06 = Ca.DAU_CODETextDetailed Analysis Units NumberDAU_NAMETextDetailed Analysis Unit NameDAUCOTextDetailed Analysis Units Number + California County CodeDAUID_CODETextCodeFIPS_MULT_Federal_Information_Procedures_SystemTextFIPS (Federal Information Processing Standards)HR CODETextHydrologic RegionsHR_NAMETextHydrologic Region NameISLANDTextIsland descriptionIsland_Y_NTextYes/NoIslandNameTextIsland NamePA_LABELTextPlanning Area LabelPA_NOTextPlanning Area NumberPSA_CODETextHistoric Planning Area NumberPSA_NAMETextHistoric Planning Area LabelRegionTextDWR Regional Boundary & NameRegion_AbrevTextDWR Regional Boundary & Name AbbreviationShape_AreaDoubleShape Area- DynamicShape_LengthDoubleShape Length - DynamicTYPETextLand or WaterWATERTextMisc. Bay or Inlet/Pacific Ocean/SF Bay – Coastal Only.............................................................................................................................................cnty18_1 metadata Summary:(*See metadata for CAL-FIRE cnty18_1). CAL-FIRE cnty18_1 boundary feature class is used for cartographic purposes, for generating statistical data, and for clipping data. Ideally, state and federal agencies should be using the same framework data for common themes such as county boundaries. This layer provides an initial offering as "best available" at 1:24,000 scale.cnty18_1 metadata Description:(*See metadata for CAL-FIRE cnty18_1). cnty18_1 metadata Credits:CAL-FIRE cnty18_1 metadata comment:This specific dataset represents the full detailed county dataset with all coding (islands, inlets, constructed features, etc.). The user has the freedom to use this coding to create definition queries, symbolize, or dissolve to create a more generalized dataset as needed.In November 2015, the dataset was adjusted to include a change in the Yuba-Placer county boundary from 2010 that was not yet included in the 14_1 version of the dataset (ord. No. 5546-B). This change constitutes the difference between the 15_1 and 14_1 versions of this dataset.In March 2018, the dataset was adjusted to include a legal boundary change between Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties (December 11, 1998) as stated in Resolution No. 98-11 (Santa Clara) and Resolution No. 432-98 (Santa Cruz). This change constitutes the difference between the 18_1 and 15_1 versions of this dataset.(*See metadata for CAL-FIRE cnty18_1). - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Conservation, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Forestry and Fire protection
Copyright Text: Department of Water Resources:
Michael L. Serna, NRO, Jason Harbaugh, NCRO, Cynthia Moffett, SCRO,
Robert Fastenau, SRO.
Description: Detailed Analysis Unit-(DAU) Convergence via County Boundary cnty24k09_1_poly, (*See metadata for CAL-FIRE cnty24k09_1_poly), State of California. The existing DAU boundaries were extracted via cnty24k09_1_poly, Northern Region Office (NRO) via ArcMap 10.1. DAU’s were sent out to: Northern Region Office (NRO), North Central Region Office (NCRO), South Central Region Office (SCRO) and Southern Region Office (SRO) respectively. Collaboration by Department of Water Resources, Region Office personnel, Michael L. Serna, NRO, Jason Harbaugh - NCRO, Cynthia Moffett - SCRO and Robert Fastenau - SRO with the final merge of all data into a cohesive feature class.This version was derived because a preexisting “dau_v2_105 nad27” Detailed Analysis Unit feature class that contained a multitude of variant sliver acreages along all DAU and county boundary lines through-out the State of California.Each Region Office was sent their respective features where they exposed the DAU’s sliver anomalies. They subsequently merged the variant slivers into the proper DAUs. Upon completion, the DAU feature classes were sent back for assemblage. These features are reachable by County\DAU. This allows the county boundaries, the DAU boundaries and the State of California Boundary to match Cal-Fire cnty24k09_1_poly.DAU BackgroundThe first investigation of California's water resources began in 1873 when President Ulysses S. Grant commissioned an investigation by Colonel B. S. Alexander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The state followed with its own study in 1878 when the State Engineer's office was created and filled by William Hammond Hall. The concept of a statewide water development project was first raised in 1919 by Lt. Robert B. Marshall of the U.S. Geological Survey. In 1931, State Engineer Edward Hyatt introduced a report identifying the facilities required and the economic means to accomplish a north-to-south water transfer. Called the "State Water Plan", the report took nine years to prepare. To implement the plan, the Legislature passed the Central Valley Act of 1933, which authorized the project. Due to lack of funds, the federal government took over the CVP as a public works project to provide jobs and its construction began in 1935.In 1945, the California Legislature authorized an investigation of statewide water resources and in 1947, the California Legislature requested that an investigation be conducted of the water resources as well as present and future water needs for all hydrologic regions in the State. Accordingly, DWR and its predecessor agencies began to collect the urban and agricultural land use and water use data that serve as the basis for the computations of current and projected water uses. The work, conducted by the Division of Water Resources (DWR’s predecessor) under the Department of Public Works, led to the publication of three important bulletins: Bulletin 1 (1951), "Water Resources of California," a collection of data on precipitation, unimpaired stream flows, flood flows and frequency, and water quality statewide; Bulletin 2 (1955), "Water Utilization and Requirements of California," estimates of water uses and forecasts of "ultimate" water needs; and Bulletin 3 (1957), "The California Water Plan," plans for full practical development of California’s water resources, both by local projects and a major State project to meet the State's ultimate needs. (**See brief addendum below** “The Development of Boundaries for Hydrologic Studies for the Sacramento Valley Region”)DWR subdivided California into study areas for planning purposes. The largest study areas are the ten hydrologic regions (HR), corresponding to the State’s major drainage basins. The next levels of delineation are the Planning Areas (PA), which in turn are composed of multiple detailed analysis units (DAU). The DAUs are often split by county boundaries, so are the smallest study areas used by DWR. The DAU/counties are used for estimating water demand by agricultural crops and other surfaces for water resources planning. Under current guidelines, each DAU/County has multiple crop and land-use categories. Many planning studies begin at the DAU or PA level, and the results are aggregated into hydrologic regions for presentation.Since 1950 DWR has conducted over 250 land use surveys of all or parts of California's 58 counties. Early land use surveys were recorded on paper maps of USGS 7.5' quadrangles. In 1986, DWR began to develop georeferenced digital maps of land use survey data, which are available for download. Long term goals for this program is to survey land use more frequently and efficiently using satellite imagery, high elevation digital imagery, local sources of data, and remote sensing in conjunction with field surveys.There are currently 58 counties and 278 DAUs in California.Due to some DAUs being split by county lines, the total number of DAU’s identifiable via DAU by County is 782.**ADDENDUM**The Development of Boundaries for Hydrologic Studies for the Sacramento Valley Region[Detailed Analysis Units made up of a grouping of the Depletion Study Drainage Areas (DSA) boundaries occurred on the Eastern Foothills and Mountains within the Sacramento Region. Other DSA’s were divided into two or more DAU’s; for example, DSA 58 (Redding Basin) was divided into 3 DAU’s; 143,141, and 145. Mountain areas on both the east and west side of the Sacramento River below Shasta Dam went from ridge top to ridge top, or topographic highs. If available, boundaries were set adjacent to stream gages located at the low point of rivers and major creek drainages.Later, as the DAU’s were developed, some of the smaller watershed DSA boundaries in the foothill and mountain areas were grouped. The Pit River DSA was split so water use in the larger valleys (Alturas area, Big Valley, Fall River Valley, Hat Creek) could be analyzed. A change in the boundary of the Sacramento Region mountain area occurred at this time when Goose Lake near the Oregon State Line was included as part of the Sacramento Region.The Sacramento Valley Floor hydrologic boundary was at the edge of the alluvial soils and slightly modified to follow the water bearing sediments to a depth of 200 feet or more. Stream gages were located on incoming streams and used as an exception to the alluvial soil boundary. Another exception to the alluvial boundary was the inclusion of the foothills between Red Bluff and the Redding Basin. Modifications of the valley floor exterior boundary were made to facilitate analysis; some areas at the northern end of the valley followed section lines or other established boundaries.Valley floor boundaries, as originally shown in Bulletin 2, Water Utilization and Requirements of California, 1955 were based on physical topographic features such as ridges even if they only rise a few feet between basins and/or drainage areas. A few boundaries were based on drainage canals. The Joint DWR-USBR Depletion Study Drainage Areas (DSA) used drainage areas where topographic highs drained into one drainage basin. Some areas were difficult to study, particularly in areas transected by major rivers. Depletion Study Drainage Areas containing large rivers were separated into two DAU’s; one on each side of the river. This made it easier to analyze water source, water supply, and water use and drainage outflow from the DAU.Many of the DAUs that consist of natural drainage basins have stream gages located at outfall gates, which provided an accurate estimate of water leaving the unit. Detailed Analysis Units based on political boundaries or other criteria are much more difficult to analyze than those units that follow natural drainage basins.]**END ADDENDUM**FieldsData TypeDescriptionDAU_CODETextDetailed Analysis Units NumberDAU_NAMETextDetailed Analysis Unit NameHR CODETextHydrologic RegionsHR_NAMETextHydrologic Region NameNAME_PCASETextCounty Name Upper\Lower CaseNAME_UCASETextCounty Name Upper CaseFMNAME_PCTextName Upper\Lower Case - CountyFMNAME_UCTextCounty Name Upper Case ABBREVTextCounty Abbreviation ABCODETextCodeFIPSTextFederal Information Processing Standards, 3-Digit NumberACRESDoubleAcres Of Polygonal Feature –Not DynamicPA_NOTextPlanning Area NumberPA_LABELTextPlanning Area LabelPSA_CODETextHistoric Planning Area NumberPSA_NAMETextHistoric Planning Area LabelDAUID_CODETextCodeISLANDTextYes\NoIslandnameTextIsland NameVxcountLongFeature Vertex Count –Not DynamicRegionTextDWR Regional Boundary & NameRegion_AbrevTextDWR Regional Boundary & Name AbbreviationX-COORDDoubleX Coordinate Centroid –Not DynamicY-COORDDoubleY Coordinate Centroid –Not DynamicShape_LengthDoubleShape Length - DynamicShape_AreaDoubleShape Area- Dynamic.............................................................................................................................................cnty24k09_1_poly metadata Summary:Ideally, state and federal agencies should be using the same framework data for common themes such as county boundaries. This layer provides an initial offering as "best available" at 1:24,000 scale. Additional improvements, including a review of data sources for the coastline, can be added over time based on interagency review and agreement on proposed changes.cnty24k09_1_poly metadata Description:In late 1996, the Dept. of Conservation (DOC) surveyed state and federal agencies about the county boundary coverage they used. As a result, DOC adopted the 1:24,000 (24K) scale U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) dataset (USGS source) for their Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) but with several modifications. Detailed documentation of these changes is provided by FMMP and included in the lineage section of the metadata. A dataset named cnty24k97_1 was made available (approximately 2004) through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CDF - FRAP) and the California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL). In late 2006, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) reviewed cnty24k97_1. Comparisons were made to a high-quality 100K dataset (co100a/county100k from the former Teale Data Center GIS Solutions Group) and legal boundary descriptions from ( http://www.leginfo.ca.gov ). The cnty24k97_1 dataset was missing Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands. DFG added the missing islands using previously-digitized coastline data (coastn27 of State Lands Commission origin), corrected a few county boundaries, built region topology, added additional attributes, and renamed the dataset to county24k. In 2007, the California Mapping Coordinating Committee (CMCC) requested that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL-FIRE) resume stewardship of the statewide county boundaries data. CAL-FIRE adopted the changes made by DFG and collected additional suggestions for the county data from DFG, DOC, and local government agencies. CAL-FIRE incorporated these suggestions into the latest revision, which has been renamed cnty24k09_1. Detailed documentation of changes is included in the Process Step section of the metadata.cnty24k09_1_poly metadata Credits:U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Conservation, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Forestry and Fire protectioncnty24k09_1_poly metadata Use Limitations:See Citation section for FRAP disclaimer
Copyright Text: Department of Water Resources:
Michael L. Serna, NRO, Jason Harbaugh, NCRO, Cynthia Moffett, SCRO and Robert Fastenau, SRO.
Description: Detailed Analysis Unit-(DAU) Convergence via County Boundary cnty24k09_1_poly, (*See metadata for CAL-FIRE cnty24k09_1_poly), State of California. The existing DAU boundaries were extracted via cnty24k09_1_poly, Northern Region Office (NRO) via ArcMap 10.1. DAU’s were sent out to: Northern Region Office (NRO), North Central Region Office (NCRO), South Central Region Office (SCRO) and Southern Region Office (SRO) respectively. Collaboration by Department of Water Resources, Region Office personnel, Michael L. Serna, NRO, Jason Harbaugh - NCRO, Cynthia Moffett - SCRO and Robert Fastenau - SRO with the final merge of all data into a cohesive feature class.This version was derived because a preexisting “dau_v2_105 nad27” Detailed Analysis Unit feature class that contained a multitude of variant sliver acreages along all DAU and county boundary lines through-out the State of California.Each Region Office was sent their respective features where they exposed the DAU’s sliver anomalies. They subsequently merged the variant slivers into the proper DAUs. Upon completion, the DAU feature classes were sent back for assemblage. These features are reachable by STATE\DAU. This allows the county boundaries, the DAU boundaries and the State of California Boundary to match CAL-FIRE cnty24k09_1_poly.DAU BackgroundThe first investigation of California's water resources began in 1873 when President Ulysses S. Grant commissioned an investigation by Colonel B. S. Alexander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The state followed with its own study in 1878 when the State Engineer's office was created and filled by William Hammond Hall. The concept of a statewide water development project was first raised in 1919 by Lt. Robert B. Marshall of the U.S. Geological Survey. In 1931, State Engineer Edward Hyatt introduced a report identifying the facilities required and the economic means to accomplish a north-to-south water transfer. Called the "State Water Plan", the report took nine years to prepare. To implement the plan, the Legislature passed the Central Valley Act of 1933, which authorized the project. Due to lack of funds, the federal government took over the CVP as a public works project to provide jobs and its construction began in 1935.In 1945, the California Legislature authorized an investigation of statewide water resources and in 1947, the California Legislature requested that an investigation be conducted of the water resources as well as present and future water needs for all hydrologic regions in the State. Accordingly, DWR and its predecessor agencies began to collect the urban and agricultural land use and water use data that serve as the basis for the computations of current and projected water uses. The work, conducted by the Division of Water Resources (DWR’s predecessor) under the Department of Public Works, led to the publication of three important bulletins: Bulletin 1 (1951), "Water Resources of California," a collection of data on precipitation, unimpaired stream flows, flood flows and frequency, and water quality statewide; Bulletin 2 (1955), "Water Utilization and Requirements of California," estimates of water uses and forecasts of "ultimate" water needs; and Bulletin 3 (1957), "The California Water Plan," plans for full practical development of California’s water resources, both by local projects and a major State project to meet the State's ultimate needs. (**See brief addendum below** “The Development of Boundaries for Hydrologic Studies for the Sacramento Valley Region”)DWR subdivided California into study areas for planning purposes. The largest study areas are the ten hydrologic regions (HR), corresponding to the State’s major drainage basins. The next levels of delineation are the Planning Areas (PA), which in turn are composed of multiple detailed analysis units (DAU). The DAUs are often split by county boundaries, so are the smallest study areas used by DWR. The DAU/counties are used for estimating water demand by agricultural crops and other surfaces for water resources planning. Under current guidelines, each DAU/County has multiple crop and land-use categories. Many planning studies begin at the DAU or PA level, and the results are aggregated into hydrologic regions for presentation.Since 1950 DWR has conducted over 250 land use surveys of all or parts of California's 58 counties. Early land use surveys were recorded on paper maps of USGS 7.5' quadrangles. In 1986, DWR began to develop georeferenced digital maps of land use survey data, which are available for download. Long term goals for this program is to survey land use more frequently and efficiently using satellite imagery, high elevation digital imagery, local sources of data, and remote sensing in conjunction with field surveys.There are currently 58 counties and 278 DAUs in California.Due to some DAUs being split by county lines, the total number of DAU’s identifiable via DAU by County is 782.**ADDENDUM**The Development of Boundaries for Hydrologic Studies for the Sacramento Valley Region[Detailed Analysis Units made up of a grouping of the Depletion Study Drainage Areas (DSA) boundaries occurred on the Eastern Foothills and Mountains within the Sacramento Region. Other DSA’s were divided into two or more DAU’s; for example, DSA 58 (Redding Basin) was divided into 3 DAU’s; 143,141, and 145. Mountain areas on both the east and west side of the Sacramento River below Shasta Dam went from ridge top to ridge top, or topographic highs. If available, boundaries were set adjacent to stream gages located at the low point of rivers and major creek drainages.Later, as the DAU’s were developed, some of the smaller watershed DSA boundaries in the foothill and mountain areas were grouped. The Pit River DSA was split so water use in the larger valleys (Alturas area, Big Valley, Fall River Valley, Hat Creek) could be analyzed. A change in the boundary of the Sacramento Region mountain area occurred at this time when Goose Lake near the Oregon State Line was included as part of the Sacramento Region.The Sacramento Valley Floor hydrologic boundary was at the edge of the alluvial soils and slightly modified to follow the water bearing sediments to a depth of 200 feet or more. Stream gages were located on incoming streams and used as an exception to the alluvial soil boundary. Another exception to the alluvial boundary was the inclusion of the foothills between Red Bluff and the Redding Basin. Modifications of the valley floor exterior boundary were made to facilitate analysis; some areas at the northern end of the valley followed section lines or other established boundaries.Valley floor boundaries, as originally shown in Bulletin 2, Water Utilization and Requirements of California, 1955 were based on physical topographic features such as ridges even if they only rise a few feet between basins and/or drainage areas. A few boundaries were based on drainage canals. The Joint DWR-USBR Depletion Study Drainage Areas (DSA) used drainage areas where topographic highs drained into one drainage basin. Some areas were difficult to study, particularly in areas transected by major rivers. Depletion Study Drainage Areas containing large rivers were separated into two DAU’s; one on each side of the river. This made it easier to analyze water source, water supply, and water use and drainage outflow from the DAU.Many of the DAUs that consist of natural drainage basins have stream gages located at outfall gates, which provided an accurate estimate of water leaving the unit. Detailed Analysis Units based on political boundaries or other criteria are much more difficult to analyze than those units that follow natural drainage basins.]**END ADDENDUM**FieldsData TypeDescriptionDAU_CODETextDetailed Analysis Units NumberDAU_NAMETextDetailed Analysis Unit NameHR CODETextHydrologic RegionsHR_NAMETextHydrologic Region NameNAME_PCASETextCounty Name Upper\Lower CaseNAME_UCASETextCounty Name Upper CaseFMNAME_PCTextName Upper\Lower Case - CountyFMNAME_UCTextCounty Name Upper Case ABBREVTextCounty Abbreviation ABCODETextCodeFIPSTextFederal Information Processing Standards, 3-Digit NumberACRESDoubleAcres Of Polygonal Feature –Not DynamicPA_NOTextPlanning Area NumberPA_LABELTextPlanning Area LabelPSA_CODETextHistoric Planning Area NumberPSA_NAMETextHistoric Planning Area LabelDAUID_CODETextCodeISLANDTextYes\NoIslandnameTextIsland NameVxcountLongFeature Vertex Count –Not DynamicRegionTextDWR Regional Boundary & NameRegion_AbrevTextDWR Regional Boundary & Name AbbreviationX-COORDDoubleX Coordinate Centroid –Not DynamicY-COORDDoubleY Coordinate Centroid –Not DynamicShape_LengthDoubleShape Length - DynamicShape_AreaDoubleShape Area- Dynamic.............................................................................................................................................cnty24k09_1_poly metadata Summary:Ideally, state and federal agencies should be using the same framework data for common themes such as county boundaries. This layer provides an initial offering as "best available" at 1:24,000 scale. Additional improvements, including a review of data sources for the coastline, can be added over time based on interagency review and agreement on proposed changes.cnty24k09_1_poly metadata Description:In late 1996, the Dept. of Conservation (DOC) surveyed state and federal agencies about the county boundary coverage they used. As a result, DOC adopted the 1:24,000 (24K) scale U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) dataset (USGS source) for their Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) but with several modifications. Detailed documentation of these changes is provided by FMMP and included in the lineage section of the metadata. A dataset named cnty24k97_1 was made available (approximately 2004) through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CDF - FRAP) and the California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL). In late 2006, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) reviewed cnty24k97_1. Comparisons were made to a high-quality 100K dataset (co100a/county100k from the former Teale Data Center GIS Solutions Group) and legal boundary descriptions from ( http://www.leginfo.ca.gov ). The cnty24k97_1 dataset was missing Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands. DFG added the missing islands using previously-digitized coastline data (coastn27 of State Lands Commission origin), corrected a few county boundaries, built region topology, added additional attributes, and renamed the dataset to county24k. In 2007, the California Mapping Coordinating Committee (CMCC) requested that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL-FIRE) resume stewardship of the statewide county boundaries data. CAL-FIRE adopted the changes made by DFG and collected additional suggestions for the county data from DFG, DOC, and local government agencies. CAL-FIRE incorporated these suggestions into the latest revision, which has been renamed cnty24k09_1. Detailed documentation of changes is included in the Process Step section of the metadata.cnty24k09_1_poly metadata Credits:U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Conservation, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Forestry and Fire protectioncnty24k09_1_poly metadata Use Limitations:See Citation section for FRAP disclaimer
Copyright Text: Department of Water Resources:
Michael L. Serna, NRO, Jason Harbaugh, NCRO, Cynthia Moffett, SCRO and Robert Fastenau, SRO.
Description: Archived on 2017217, and the name was changed from i03_irwm_regions to i03_irwm_regions_2017217. The Region Acceptance Process (RAP) is a component of the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Program Guidelines and is used to evaluate and accept an IRWM region into the IRWM grant program. The RAP is not a grant funding application; however, acceptance of the composition of an IRWM region (including the IRWM region’s boundary) into the IRWM grant program is required for DWR IRWM grant funding eligibility. This dataset includes:the boundaries of the most current IRWM Regions (as submitted to DWR by the respective IRWM planning region)their RAP status (Accepted, Not Accepted or Conditional) as conferred by DWR the year each entity participated in the RAP a descriptive field noting the date of any subsequent IRWM boundary changes submitted and accepted by DWR
Copyright Text: Division of Integrated Regional Water Management (DIRWM)
Financial Assistance Branch
Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program
Description: Complete accounting of all incorporated cities, including the boundary and name of each individual city. Primary use for CAL FIRE is for identifying incorporated areas, which are not eligible for State Responsibility Area (SRA) designation. Secondary uses are for cartographic purposes, e.g. adding city names and city limits to maps, and for creating contact lists for which cities fall within a certain designation. For CAL FIRE, this was especially relevant for notification of cities with Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.For this version (16_1), in addition to capturing annexations, we adusted city boundaries where appropriate to match updated county parcel data. These adjustments were typically done in areas where cities are adjacent to SRA, the process did not cover all city boundaries.
Copyright Text: California Board of Equalization provided notification and maps for each annexation.