Groundwater-Quality Data in the North San Francisco Bay Shallow Aquifer Study Unit, 2012: Results from the California GAMA Program

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | October 23rd, 2014

Groundwater quality in the 1,850-square-mile North San Francisco Bay Shallow Aquifer (NSF-SA) study unit was investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from April

Groundwater quality in the 1,850-square-mile North San Francisco Bay Shallow Aquifer (NSF-SA) study unit was investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from April to August 2012, as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program’s Priority Basin Project (PBP). The GAMA-PBP was developed in response to the California Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted in collaboration with the SWRCB and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The NSF-SA study unit was the first study unit to be sampled as part of the second phase of the GAMA-PBP, which focuses on the shallow aquifer system. The groundwater samples were analyzed for organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], pesticides, and pesticide degradates);  gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity). Naturally occurring constituents of special interest (perchlorate and 1,2,3-trichloropropane [1,2,3-TCP]); naturally occurring inorganic constituents (trace elements, nutrients, major and minor ions, silica, and total dissolved solids [TDS]); and radioactive constituents (radon-222 and gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity). Naturally occurring isotopes (stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, boron, strontium, and inorganic carbon in water, tritium activities, and carbon-14 abundances) were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, 207 constituents and water-quality indicators were measured.

Groundwater-Quality Data in the Santa Cruz, San Gabriel, and Peninsular Ranges Hard Rock Aquifers Study Unit, 2011–2012: Results from the California GAMA Program

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | December 11th, 2014

Groundwater quality in the 2,400-square-mile Santa Cruz, San Gabriel, and Peninsular Ranges Hard Rock Aquifers (Hard Rock) study unit was investigated by the U.S. Geologi

Groundwater quality in the 2,400-square-mile Santa Cruz, San Gabriel, and Peninsular Ranges Hard Rock Aquifers (Hard Rock) study unit was investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from March 2011 through March 2012, as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program’s Priority Basin Project (PBP). The GAMA-PBP was developed in response to the California Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted in collaboration with the SWRCB and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The Hard Rock study unit was the 35th study unit to be sampled as part of the GAMA-PBP. In the Hard Rock study unit, groundwater samples were collected from 112 wells and springs in 3 study areas (the Santa Cruz, the San Gabriel, and the Peninsular Ranges) in San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. Eighty-three wells and 11 springs were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study unit (grid wells), and 15 wells and 3 springs were selected to aid in evaluation of water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for field water-quality indicators; organic constituents; one constituent of special interest (perchlorate); naturally occurring inorganic constituents; and radioactive constituents. Naturally occurring isotopes and dissolved noble gases were also measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, 209 constituents and water-quality indicators were measured.

Groundwater: The Water-Budget Myth

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) | June 1st, 1982

Water-resource scientists are concerned that some basic principles are being overlooked by water managers. Rather than discuss the scope of groundwater hydrolog

Water-resource scientists are concerned that some basic principles are being overlooked by water managers. Rather than discuss the scope of groundwater hydrology, we have chosen to focus on a common misconception to illustrate the point. Perhaps the most common misconception in groundwater hydrology is that a water budget of an area determines the magnitude of possible groundwater development. Several well-known hydrologists have addressed this misconception and attempted to dispel it. Somehow, though, it persists and continues to color decisions by the water-management community. The laws governing the development of groundwater in Nevada as well as several other states are based on the idea that pumping within a groundwater basin shall not exceed the recharge. It is the intent of this paper to re-examine the issue.

Groundwater/Aquifer Remediation (Resource Management Strategy)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 29th, 2016

Portions of aquifers in many groundwater basins in California have degraded water quality that does not support beneficial use of groundwater. In some areas, groundwater

Portions of aquifers in many groundwater basins in California have degraded water quality that does not support beneficial use of groundwater. In some areas, groundwater quality is degraded by constituents that occur naturally (e.g., arsenic). In many urban and rural areas, groundwater quality degradation has resulted from a wide range of human (anthropogenic) activities. Groundwater remediation is necessary to improve the quality of degraded groundwater for beneficial use. Drinking water supply is the beneficial use that typically requires remediation when groundwater quality is degraded. Contaminants in groundwater can come from a many sources, naturally occurring and anthropogenic. Examples of naturally occurring contaminants include heavy metals and radioactive constituents, as well as high concentrations of various salts from specific geologic formations or conditions. Climate change that results in altered precipitation, snowfall patterns, and rising sea levels may exacerbate salt water intrusion and flooding of low-lying infrastructure and urban facilities. These phenomena will add new challenges to protection of groundwater from contamination. In addition, groundwater can be contaminated by anthropogenic sources with organic, inorganic, and radioactive constituents from point and non-point sources. These anthropogenic sources include industrial sites, mining operations, leaking fuel tanks and pipelines, manufactured gas plants, landfills, impoundments, dairies, septic systems, and urban and agricultural activities. The contaminant having the most widespread and adverse impact on drinking water wells is arsenic, followed by nitrates, naturally occurring radioactivity, industrial/commercial solvents, and pesticides. Groundwater remediation removes constituents, hereafter called contaminants, which affect beneficial use of groundwater. Groundwater remediation systems can employ passive or active methods to remove contaminants. Passive groundwater remediation allows contaminants to degrade biologically or chemically or disperse in situ over time. Active groundwater remediation involves either treating contaminated groundwater while it is still in the aquifer (in situ) or extracting contaminated groundwater from the aquifer and treating it outside of the aquifer (ex situ). Active in situ methods generally involve injecting chemicals into the contaminant plume to obtain a chemical or biological removal of the contaminant. Ex situ methods for treating contaminated groundwater can involve physical, chemical, and/or biological processes.

Growing human-induced climate change fingerprint in regional weekly fire extremes

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | April 23rd, 2025

Growing impact of wildfire on western US water supply

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) | February 22nd, 2022

Streamflow often increases after fire, but the persistence of this effect and its importance to present and future regional water resources are unclear. This paper addres

Streamflow often increases after fire, but the persistence of this effect and its importance to present and future regional water resources are unclear. This paper addresses these knowledge gaps for the western United States (WUS), where annual forest fire area increased by more than 1,100% during 1984 to 2020. Among 72 forested basins across the WUS that burned between 1984 and 2019, the multibasin mean streamflow was significantly elevated by 0.19 SDs (P < 0.01) for an average of 6 water years postfire, compared to the range of results expected from climate alone. Significance is assessed by comparing prefire and postfire streamflow responses to climate and also to streamflow among 107 control basins that experienced little to no wildfire during the study period. The streamflow response scales with fire extent: among the 29 basins where >20% of forest area burned in a year, streamflow over the first 6 water years postfire increased by a multibasin average of 0.38 SDs, or 30%. Postfire streamflow increases were significant in all four seasons. Historical fire–climate relationships combined with climate model projections suggest that 2021 to 2050 will see repeated years when climate is more fire-conducive than in 2020, the year currently holding the modern record for WUS forest area burned. These findings center on relatively small, minimally managed basins, but our results suggest that burned areas will grow enough over the next 3 decades to enhance streamflow at regional scales. Wildfire is an emerging driver of runoff change that will increasingly alter climate impacts on water supplies and runoff-related risks.

Guadalupe River mercury concentrations and loads during the large rare January 2017 storm

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | February 9th, 2018

The Guadalupe River watershed has a long history of urbanization and is the location of a historic mining district that produced 40 million kg of mercury (Hg) during ope

The Guadalupe River watershed has a long history of urbanization and is the location of a historic mining district that produced 40 million kg of mercury (Hg) during operation. The river system is listed as impaired and is a large pathway of Hg to San Francisco Bay. The TMDL calls for stakeholders to reduce load to an average of 9.4 kg per year over 20 years by removing H-laden wastes in the mining and urban areas and implementing other treatment practices. To demonstrate success, the stakeholders are documenting management efforts and have been conducting water sampling to show that average loads are decreasing or that Hg concentrations on suspended particles are trending towards the TMDL target of 0.2 mg/kg (dry wt., annual median). The Guadalupe River is capable of flows >10,000 cfs, and a flood flow of >6,000 cfs has a return interval of approximately 1:5 years yet most sampling has occurred at flows <4,000 cfs. Since most Hg is transported in the system during large storm events when Hg can be mobilized from the historic mining district, it is essential to measure the Hg load during these rare events. The main objective of this study was to sample and estimate loads during such a rare events.

Guidance Document for Groundwater Sustainability Plan Stakeholder Communicaton and Engagement, June 2017 (Draft)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 1st, 2017

The objectve of this guidance document is to provide Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) information to aid with stakeholder communication and engage

The objectve of this guidance document is to provide Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) information to aid with stakeholder communication and engagement for Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) preparation and to provide examples and existing resources related to public engagement and effective communication for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) implementation. Limitation and use of this guidance information This guidance document is not intended to prescribe specifc outreach and communications methods for GSAs or local agencies to follow, but to provide resources and various examples for consideration. This guidance document also summarizes the public notfcation requirements that GSAs must adhere to in order to comply with SGMA and the GSP regulations. Other than what is required by statute or regulation, GSAs have discretion on how they communicate and engage with the beneficial uses and users of groundwater within a basin.

Guidance Document for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Engagement with Tribal Governments June 2017 (Draft)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 1st, 2017

The objective of this guidance document is to convey information, as provided by California’s Tribal governments, by which local agencies can engage Tribal gove

The objective of this guidance document is to convey information, as provided by California’s Tribal governments, by which local agencies can engage Tribal governments as part of an effort to identify interested persons, and consider the interests of beneficial users of groundwater; including those users on Tribal lands not subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). This guidance document can also be used to help local agencies engage with a Tribal government in the planning, financing, and management of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), or help with the development and implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) pursuant to SGMA.

Guidance for Climate Change Data Use During Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | April 12th, 2018

This Guidance Document was developed to help Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) incorporate California Department of Water Resources (DWR)-provided climate change

This Guidance Document was developed to help Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) incorporate California Department of Water Resources (DWR)-provided climate change and related data into their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). The purpose of this Guidance Document is as follows: • Provide relevant data and tools for GSAs to incorporate climate change into their GSPs. • Provide an analysis approach using the provided data and tools that incorporates the best available science and best available information to date. This Guidance Document focuses on the use of DWR-provided climate change data and provides documentation about the following: • Climate change data development approach • Climate change data development methods and processes • Applications for using the provided climate change data • Climate change data assumptions and limitations This Guidance Document provides a process for using DWR-provided climate change data for computing projected water budgets and serves as a companion document to the water budget best management practices (BMPs)2 and the modeling BMP3. For Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) implementation purposes, the use of climate change data can help with the following: • Developing projected water budgets • Long-term planning of groundwater basin sustainability • Assessing projects and management actions by performing sensitivity analyses of projected conditions • Adaptive Management