San Joaquin River

Earthquakes and High Water as Levee Hazards in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | September 30th, 2016

East Contra Costa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

East Contra Costa Groundwater Sustainability Agency | October 15th, 2021

On March 28, 2019, the state approved a subdivision of the Tracy Subbasin that separated the East Contra Costa portion (now called the ECC Subbasin) from the San Joaquin

On March 28, 2019, the state approved a subdivision of the Tracy Subbasin that separated the East Contra Costa portion (now called the ECC Subbasin) from the San Joaquin County portion (retained the Tracy Subbasin name), thereby providing more local control of groundwater resources. In addition, seven GSAs were formed by local public agencies to ensure that their diverse constituents are represented in this GSP. If needed, each GSA has authorities to enact policies to protect groundwater resources based on conditions within their respective jurisdictions. This provides stakeholders with more focused engagement through a local GSA. Due to size, the file has been divided into six parts. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGA) | November 1st, 2019

In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in response to continued overdraft of California’s groundwater resources

In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in response to continued overdraft of California’s groundwater resources. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin (Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, or Subbasin) is one of 21 basins and subbasins identified by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as being in a state of critical overdraft. SGMA requires preparation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) to address measures necessary to attain sustainable conditions in the Subbasin. Within the framework of SGMA, sustainability is generally defined as long-term reliability of the groundwater supply and the absence of undesirable results. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) was formed in 2017 in response to SGMA. A Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement establishes the ESJGWA, which is composed of 16 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs): Central Delta Water Agency (CDWA), Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District (CSJWCD), City of Lodi, City of Manteca, City of Stockton, Eastside San Joaquin GSA (Eastside GSA) (composed of Calaveras County Water District [CCWD], Stanislaus County, and Rock Creek Water District), Linden County Water District (LCWD), Lockeford Community Services District (LCSD), North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD), Oakdale Irrigation District (OID), San Joaquin County No. 1, San Joaquin County No. 2 (with participation from California Water Service Company Stockton District [Cal Water]), South Delta Water Agency (SDWA), South San Joaquin GSA (composed of South San Joaquin Irrigation District [SSJID] including Woodward Reservoir, City of Ripon, and City of Escalon), Stockton East Water District (SEWD), and Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID). The ESJGWA is governed by a 16-member Board of Directors (ESJGWA Board), with one representative from each GSA. The Board is guided by an Advisory Committee, also with one representative from each GSA, that is tasked with making recommendations to the ESJGWA Board on technical and substantive matters. SGMA requires development of a GSP that achieves groundwater sustainability in the Subbasin by 2040. The GSP outlines the need to reduce overdraft conditions and has identified 23 projects for potential development that either replace groundwater use (offset) or supplement groundwater supplies (recharge) to meet current and future water demands. Although current analysis indicates that groundwater pumping offsets and/or recharge on the order of 78,000 acre-feet per year (AF/year) may be required to achieve sustainability, additional efforts are needed to confirm the level of pumping offsets and/or recharge required to achieve sustainability. These efforts include collecting additional data and a review of the Subbasin groundwater model, along with other efforts as outlined in the GSP. A Public Draft GSP was prepared and made available for public review and comment on July 10, 2019 for a period of 45 days ending on August 25, 2019. The ESJGWA received numerous comments from the public, reviewed and prepared responses to comments, and revised the Draft GSP. This Final GSP includes those edits and revisions. Comment letters and responses are included as appendices to the GSP.

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Revised)

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGA) | June 15th, 2022

In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in response to continued overdraft of California’s groundwater resources.

In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in response to continued overdraft of California’s groundwater resources. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin (Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, or Subbasin) is one of 21 basins and subbasins identified by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as being in a state of critical overdraft. SGMA requires preparation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) to address measures necessary to attain sustainable conditions in the Subbasin. Within the framework of SGMA, sustainability is generally defined as long-term reliability of the groundwater supply and the absence of undesirable results. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) was formed in 2017 in response to SGMA. A Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement establishes the ESJGWA, which is composed of 16 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs): Central Delta Water Agency (CDWA), Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District (CSJWCD), City of Lodi, City of Manteca, City of Stockton, Eastside San Joaquin GSA (Eastside GSA) (composed of Calaveras County Water District [CCWD], Stanislaus County, and Rock Creek Water District), Linden County Water District (LCWD), Lockeford Community Services District (LCSD), North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD), Oakdale Irrigation District (OID), San Joaquin County No. 1, San Joaquin County No. 2 (with participation from California Water Service Company Stockton District [Cal Water]), South Delta Water Agency (SDWA), South San Joaquin GSA (composed of South San Joaquin Irrigation District [SSJID] including Woodward Reservoir, City of Ripon, and City of Escalon), Stockton East Water District (SEWD), and Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID). The ESJGWA is governed by a 16-member Board of Directors (ESJGWA Board), with one representative from each GSA. The Board is guided by an Advisory Committee, also with one representative from each GSA, that is tasked with making recommendations to the ESJGWA Board on technical and substantive matters. SGMA requires development of a GSP that achieves groundwater sustainability in the Subbasin by 2040. The GSP outlines the need to reduce overdraft conditions and has identified 23 projects for potential development that either replace groundwater use (offset) or supplement groundwater supplies (recharge) to meet current and future water demands. Although current analysis indicates that groundwater pumping offsets and/or recharge on the order of 37,000 acre-feet per year (AF/year) may be required to achieve sustainability, additional efforts are needed to confirm the level of pumping offsets and/or recharge required to achieve sustainability. These efforts include collecting additional data and a review of the Subbasin groundwater model, along with other efforts as outlined in the GSP. A Public Draft GSP was prepared and made available for public review and comment on July 10, 2019 for a period of 45 days ending on August 25, 2019. The ESJGWA received numerous comments from the public, reviewed and prepared responses to comments, and revised the Draft GSP. This Final GSP includes those edits and revisions. Comment letters and responses are included as appendices to the GSP. On November 18, 2021, the ESJGWA received a Consultation Initiation Letter (Letter) from DWR. The Letter identified two potential deficiencies in the Subbasin GSPs which may preclude DWR’s approval, as well as potential corrective actions to address each potential deficiency. The Letter initiated consultation between DWR, the Plan Manager, the ESJGWA, and the Subbasin’s GSAs. In response to DWR’s comments, this GSP was revised in June 2022. DWR comments have also been addressed in a series of four technical memoranda appended to this revised GSP and referenced throughout the document. Due to size, this file has been divided into eight parts. Part 1,  Part 2,  Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5,  Part 6,  Part 7,  Part 8

Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Tule Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Revised)

Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency (ETGSA) | July 12th, 2022

This Plan addresses the items identified in the SGMA regulations specific to the ETGSA, including descriptions of the physical characteristics, the ETGSA water budget (h

This Plan addresses the items identified in the SGMA regulations specific to the ETGSA, including descriptions of the physical characteristics, the ETGSA water budget (historic and future), specific monitoring features and locations, quantifiable measurable objectives, interim milestones and minimum thresholds for the applicable sustainable management criteria including depth to groundwater, groundwater storage, groundwater quality, and land subsidence between 2020 and 2040, and those projects and management actions proposed to implement during the 20 year planning horizon to achieve the Sustainability Goal. These projects and management actions will be critical to the success of the Plan, which initially focus the ETGSA to implement an accounting system to track and monitor groundwater data to help inform and develop policies to adaptively manage to reduce groundwater overdraft while minimizing impacts to agriculture production and economic impacts to the local communities. Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8

EcoAtlas: Enhancing Regional Capacity for Habitat Restoration Project Tracking, Assessment and Reporting

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | July 1st, 2016

This project consolidates information from a variety of existing datasets to signicantLly expand the project tracking functionality in EcoAtlas to include hundreds of h

This project consolidates information from a variety of existing datasets to signicantLly expand the project tracking functionality in EcoAtlas to include hundreds of habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration projects throughout the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay-Delta regions. The Project Tracker database has been redesigned to better accommodate detailed project information such as acres of distinct habitat types, species benefitted, progress and status, and funding sources. Additional functionality was added to enhance visual displays and queries of the tabular and spatial project data. As new projects are developed and existing projects enter new phases, information can be expanded and updated through the new online data entry forms. Additional spatial data layers such as “Modern Delta Habitat Types” allow users to evaluate projects within the context of existing ecological resources and other landscape characteristics and uses. Additional data, querying and mapping functionality will allow for improved analyses of changes in habitat extent, landscape-scale conservation planning, evaluation of progress towards meeting conservation objectives, and partnership building. By providing the tools needed to track and analyze landscape change, we will improve our ability to strategically conserve important habitats in the future.

Ecological implications of modeled hydrodynamic changes in the upper San Francisco Estuary

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | May 2nd, 2016

Understanding how the pre-development upper San Francisco Estuary supported native wildlife is challenging because our current understanding of local wildlife ecology is

Understanding how the pre-development upper San Francisco Estuary supported native wildlife is challenging because our current understanding of local wildlife ecology is largely based on the profoundly altered modern landscape. This difficulty is compounded by the dynamic nature of the upper estuary’s aquatic habitats, which naturally experience tremendous temporal variability, largely due to the region’s Mediterranean climate. One approach to understanding how the system historically supported native wildlife is through a lens of landscape ecology (Whipple et al. 2012; SFEI-ASC 2014). This memorandum documents the first efforts to understand the landscape ecology of the upper estuary, comprising the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and Suisun Bay, using a 3D hydrodynamic model of the pre-development system. By studying the pre-development landscape, we hope to gain insight into the deficiencies of the contemporary landscape and to help develop solutions for remedying these deficiencies. 

Ecological Studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, A Decennial Report 1961-1971

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | June 15th, 1972

Economic Analysis of Stage I of the California WaterFix Costs and Benefits to Urban and Agricultural Participants

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

The California WaterFix, considered initially as part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, is a foundational component of the state’s Water Action Plan. It add

The California WaterFix, considered initially as part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, is a foundational component of the state’s Water Action Plan. It addresses environmental, seismic, water quality and climate change threats to the existing water conveyance infrastructure in the Delta and complements efforts to improve ecological functions being advanced by the state’s California EcoRestore program. During this planning process that now spans more than 11 years, economic principles for measuring costs and benefits have been applied over time in various reports to review the values of water system and ecosystem improvements and to help advance public discussion and debate. Such cost-benefit analyses have gone beyond what is legally required because of the statewide significance of the project. This most recent analysis is intended to help examine the evolved project and the related costs and benefits of the potenti al participants in both the urban and agricultural sectors. After several years of analysis, the California Department of Water Resources is considering an option to implement the California WaterFix project in two Stage s. Stage I would consist of two 3,000-cfs intakes connected to one 40-ft diameter tunnel. From the intakes, water would be conveyed by gravity flow to a 6,000-c fs pumping plant that lifts it into Clifton Court Forebay. Stage II of the California WaterFix would consist of an additional 3,000-cfs intake connected to a second tunnel. Because not all aspects of financing and project participation have been decided at present, this report considers Stage I costs and benefits in multiple alternative scenarios. These scenarios include whether i) low - interest federal financing will be available to cover a share of project costs, ii) revenues will be collected for federal contractors’ use of up to 1,000-cfs of the Stage I project or whether the State Water Contractors will make use of the entire capa city , and iii) trading of project capacity will be allowed among t he State Water Contractors . Participants in Stage II of the California WaterFix are not currently known. Depending on the evolution of environmental regulations, water demands and climate, state and federal water agencies may decide to implement Stage II at some point in the future. At that time, a detailed cost - benefit analysis of Stage II can be completed. The analysis described in this report concludes that Stage I of the California WaterFix passes a cost - benefit test for SWP urban and agricultural agencies under all scenarios analyzed . T he ability of project participants to trade their shares in the project is highly beneficial to SWP agricultural agencies, as is the availability of federal low - interest financing . The analysis also indicates that federal contractors south of the Delta receive benefits in excess of costs from the use of up to 1,000-cfs of Stage 1 project capacity. The State Water Project contractors would also receive positive net benefits were they to use all 6,000-cfs of capacity.

Economic Analysis of the 2014 Drought for California Agriculture

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 15th, 2014

California is enduring its third driest year on record as agricultural, urban and environmental demands for water are at an all-time high. This report presents an assessm

California is enduring its third driest year on record as agricultural, urban and environmental demands for water are at an all-time high. This report presents an assessment of the economic impacts of the 2014 drought on crop production, livestock and dairies using a suite of models.  This analysis extends the preliminary estimates of the Central Valley drought impacts released May 19, 2014 (Howitt et al. 2014) to include:  •Broadened coverage of the Statewide Agricultural Production Model (SWAP) to include majoragricultural areas on California's central and south coasts and inland farms of the Imperial,Coachella and Palo Verde valleys, •Updated SWAP agricultural production and economic impact estimates for the Central Valleyusing the most current data available, •Estimated Central Valley impacts if the drought persists through 2015 and 2016, includingeconomic effects and the impact of increasing groundwater depletion and pumping depths usingthe California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) C2VSIM model, •Estimated fallowing of cropland due to drought using the SWAP model, •Estimated losses to dairies and livestock using a supply elasticity approach based on pasturelosses and feed crop prices, and •Comments on the preliminary draft from various state agencies. The study finds that the 2014 drought will result in a 6.6 million acre-foot reduction in surface water available to agriculture. This loss of surface water will be partially replaced by increasing groundwater pumping by 5 million acre-feet.  The resulting net water shortage of 1.6 million acre-feet will cause losses of $810 million in crop revenue and $203 million in dairy and other livestock value, plus additional groundwater pumping costs of $454 million. These direct costs to agriculture total $1.5 billion. The total statewide economic cost of the 2014 drought is $2.2 billion, with a total loss of 17,100 seasonal and part-time jobs. Table ES-1 summarizes the key findings of the study.