Groundwater Exchange

Search Results

Browse All Documents

“Good Luck Fixing the Problem”: Small Low-Income Community Participation in Collaborative Groundwater Governance and Implications for Drinking Water Source Protection

Add to Downloads

“Good Luck Fixing the Problem”: Small Low-Income Community Participation in Collaborative Groundwater Governance and Implications for Drinking Water Source Protection
Society and Natural Resources, Routledge | June 10, 2020...
Summary
There is increasing interest in the potential of source water protection to address chronic challenges with small systems and rural drinking water provision....
There is increasing interest in the potential of source water protection to address chronic challenges with small systems and rural drinking water provision. Such a planning and management approach to increasing safe drinking water access, however, will likely require leveraging multi-stakeholder collaborative governance venues to this effect. This paper investigates the prospects of doing so using the case of California’s groundwater reform process known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act or SGMA. Interviews with drinking water stakeholders from small low-income communities in the San Joaquin Valley show how existing power and resource disparities limit the prospects of integrating rural drinking water priorities into regional planning. Long-term, more fundamental changes will be needed to meaningfully transform water management in this direction. Short-term state intervention is needed to protect equity and public good goals, raising potential contradictions between devolved water management and improved drinking water access that need to be addressed.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
2016 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition Santa Maria Valley Management Area

Add to Downloads

2016 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition Santa Maria Valley Management Area
City of Santa Maria | April 13, 2017...
Summary
This annual report of conditions in the Santa Maria Valley Management Area, for calendar year 2016, has been prepared to meet the reporting conditions...
This annual report of conditions in the Santa Maria Valley Management Area, for calendar year 2016, has been prepared to meet the reporting conditions of the June 30, 2005, Stipulation entered by the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin litigation. The Stipulation divided the overall Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin into three management areas, the largest of which overlies the main Santa Maria Valley (the Santa Maria Valley Management Area, or SMVMA) and is the subject of this report. The other two management areas, the Nipomo Mesa Management Area (NMMA) and the Northern Cities Management Area, are addressed in separate annual reports prepared by others.

The Stipulation, approved and implemented in 2008, specifies that monitoring shall be sufficient to determine groundwater conditions, land and water uses, sources of water supply, and the disposition of all water supplies in the Basin. Annual Reports for the SMVMA are to summarize the results of the monitoring and include an analysis of the relationship between projected water demand and supply. The Stipulation was preserved in the California Court of Appeal (Sixth Appellate District) Decision of November 21, 2012, and in the Superior Court of the State of California (County of Santa Clara) Final Judgment of April 23, 2014. Thus, the Physical Solution criteria for monitoring and managing groundwater in the basin remain.

In accordance with the Stipulation, this report on the SMVMA provides a description of the physical setting and briefly describes previous studies conducted in the groundwater basin, including the long-term monitoring program developed for the SMVMA. As reported herein, the Twitchell Management Authority (TMA) commissioned the preparation of a monitoring program for the SMVMA in 2008, and its complete implementation is expected to provide the data with which to fully assess future conditions. This report describes hydrogeologic conditions in the management area historically and through 2016, including groundwater conditions, Twitchell Reservoir operations, and hydrologic and climatic conditions. As with all previous annual reports (commencing in 2008), the water requirements and supplies for agricultural and municipal uses are accounted, as are the components of water disposition in the SMVMA.

Conclusions drawn regarding water resource conditions are discussed, including any finding of severe water shortage, which is concluded to not be the case through 2016. Finally, recommendations are provided with regard to the intra-basin transfer of water from the SMVMA to the NMMA, possible enhancement of groundwater recharge, expanded assessment of water resource conditions, and continued implementation of the monitoring program for the SMVMA.

Janny Choi from Stanford University's Water in the West discusses the Santa Maria stipulation in the 2014 paper Before the Well Runs Dry: Improving the Linkage Between Groundwater and Land Use Planning.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
2017 Salinas Valley Groundwater Level Contours & Seawater Intrusion Maps
$0.00
Add to Downloads

2017 Salinas Valley Groundwater Level Contours & Seawater Intrusion Maps
Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) | April 24, 2018...
Summary

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
2017 SGMA Annual Report South American Subbasin (5-021.65) Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority
$0.00
Add to Downloads

2017 SGMA Annual Report South American Subbasin (5-021.65) Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority
Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority, GEI Consultants Inc. | April 1, 2018...
Summary
The Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA) has prepared an Annual Report describing groundwater conditions in the South American Subbasin for the 2017 Water...

The Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA) has prepared an Annual Report describing groundwater conditions in the South American Subbasin for the 2017 Water Year (i.e., inclusive of months October 2016 to September 2017) in support of their pending Alternative Submittal. The Annual Report is intended for conveying monitoring and water use data to the State DWR on an annual basis to gauge performance of the groundwater subbasin relative to the sustainability goal set forth in a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) or, for SCGA, the Alternative Submittal. As such, SCGA is including sufficient information to provide interested parties with sufficient background and supporting details to serve as a public communications document for subbasin management and to take the place of historic biennial reporting available on the SCGA website.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
A Bayesian approach to infer nitrogen loading rates from crop and land-use types surrounding private wells in the Central Valley, California

Add to Downloads

A Bayesian approach to infer nitrogen loading rates from crop and land-use types surrounding private wells in the Central Valley, California
European Geosciences Union | May 7, 2018...
Summary
This study is focused on nitrogen loading from a wide variety of crop and land-use types in the Central Valley, California, USA, an intensively farmed...
This study is focused on nitrogen loading from a wide variety of crop and land-use types in the Central Valley, California, USA, an intensively farmed region with high agricultural crop diversity. Nitrogen loading rates for several crop types have been measured based on field-scale experiments, and recent research has calculated nitrogen loading rates for crops throughout the Central Valley based on a mass balance approach. However, research is lacking to infer nitrogen loading rates for the broad diversity of crop and land use types directly from groundwater nitrate measurements.

Relating groundwater nitrate measurements to specific crops must account for the uncertainty about and multiplicity in contributing crops (and other land uses) to individual well measurements, and for the variability of nitrogen loading within farms and from farm to farm for the same crop type. In this study, we developed a Bayesian regression model that allowed us to estimate land-use-specific groundwater nitrogen loading rate probability distributions for 15 crop and land-use groups based on a database of recent nitrate measurements from 2149 private wells in the Central Valley.

The water and natural, rice, and alfalfa and pasture groups had the lowest median estimated nitrogen loading rates, each with a median estimate below 5 kg N ha -1 yr -1. Confined animal feeding operations (dairies) and citrus and subtropical crops had the greatest median estimated nitrogen loading rates at approximately 269 and 65 kg N ha -1 yr-1, respectively. In general, our probability-based estimates compare favorably with previous direct measurements and with mass-balance-based estimates of nitrogen loading. Nitrogen mass-balance-based estimates are larger than our groundwater nitrate derived estimates for manured and non-manured forage, nuts, cotton, tree fruit, and rice crops. These discrepancies are thought to be due to groundwater age mixing, dilution from infiltrating river water, or denitrification between the time when nitrogen leaves the root zone (point of reference for mass-balance derived loading) and the time and location of groundwater measurement.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
A brief geologic and hydrologic reconnaissance of the Furnace Creek Wash area, Death Valley National Monument, California

Add to Downloads

A brief geologic and hydrologic reconnaissance of the Furnace Creek Wash area, Death Valley National Monument, California
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | July 1, 1964...
Summary

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
A Conjunctive Use Model for the Tule Groundwater Sub-Basin Area in the Southern-Eastern San Joaquin Valley, California

Add to Downloads

A Conjunctive Use Model for the Tule Groundwater Sub-Basin Area in the Southern-Eastern San Joaquin Valley, California
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | February 4, 2003...
Summary
The Tule groundwater sub-basin is an agriculturally-intensive area located in the eastern-central part of the southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Urban and agricultural...

The Tule groundwater sub-basin is an agriculturally-intensive area located in the eastern-central part of the southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Urban and agricultural stakeholders in the Tule sub-basin depend on a combination of imported surface water and pumped groundwater to meet their water de- mands. The water service districts there receive surface water deliveries from the Friant Unit of the Central Valley Project (CVP) (United States Bureau of Reclamation), the State Water Project (SWP) (California Department of Water Resources), the Kings River (United States Army Corps of Engineers), or the Success Reservoir (United States Army Corps of Engineers). All of these surface water sources develop their supplies from run-off and snow melt in the foothills and watersheds of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The state of California is prone to recurring droughts, some lasting several years. During drought periods, irrigated agriculture depends more heavily on groundwater pumping as surface water supplies are generally less available. To buffer the effects of drought, districts in the Tule sub-basin have cooperatively managed their surface water and groundwater resources conjunctively. During a normal to wet year, excess available surface water supplies (e.g. releases for flood control) are used by some districts to recharge their groundwater reservoirs. However, a prolonged multi-year drought invariably leads to an increased dependence on groundwater pumping and overdraft of the groundwater sub-basin storage. In addition to climate variability, changes in future surface water supplies may also occur due to the passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, which mandates that 400,000 acre-feet per year of CVP water be released from the Friant Unit into the San Joaquin River for restoration purposes.

To better understand the impacts of irrigated agriculture, fluctuating surface water supplies, and groundwater pumping practices on water levels and groundwater storage in the Tule sub-basin area, we developed a GIS-based con- junctive use model to study them. The study area is 541,580 acres in size and contains the entire Tule groundwater sub-basin and parts of the Kaweah and Tulare Lake groundwater sub-basins. The incorporated land in the study area is divided into 26 water service districts: 21 irrigation, water, or public utility districts; 2 major cities; 2 private contractors; and 1 water company. These districts are either completely or partially located within the study area. The study area is further delineated into 9,114 individual land units from a 1985 land use survey of Tulare County. Agriculture is the largest land use, compris- ing 72% of the study area. Native and urban land use comprise 22% and 4% of the study area, respectively. Semi-agricultural and special conditions (i.e. fallow) land use each comprise 1%. Twelve crops account for 95% of the area under agricultural production. Cotton, grain & grass hay, citrus, vineyards, and alfalfa individually represent 20.3, 18.6, 13.6, 13, and 10.3% of the total productive acreage, respectively.

Surface water supplies are distributed to the districts and ultimately to the individual land units by a surface water supply system. The surface water supply system in the model is divided into two parts: 1) an inter-district surface water channel network, and 2) an intra-district surface water distribution system. The inter-district channel network consists of the explicitly modeled source and diversion channels which import surface water into the study area and deliver it to individual districts. The intra-district distribution system con- sists of the implicitly modeled district channels (e.g. laterals, ditches, canals, farm turnouts) which deliver surface water to individual land units within each district.

The conjunctive use model consists of three loosely-coupled sub-models: 1) a surface water supply (SWS) model, 2) an unsaturated zone water budget (UZWB) model, and 3) a groundwater flow model. The base period of the study covers the fiscal water years of 1970-99. The purpose of the SWS model is to calculate the surface water balance for the source and diversion channels in the inter-district channel network. For each modeled surface water channel, the SWS model computes surface water deliveries from it to each district and conveyance losses from it due to evaporation and channel seepage. The primary model outputs are monthly surface water deliveries to each district and monthly seepage rates from modeled channels. The surface water deliveries became input for the UZWB model. The channel seepage became input for the groundwater flow model as localized aquifer recharge. The allocation of surface water within each district, via the implicitly modeled intra-district surface water distribution system, is estimated by the UZWB model.

The total imported surface water for 1970-99 from the CVP and the Success Reservoir are 13,329,262 and 4,653,501 acre-feet (af), respectively. The SWP and the Kings River imported the lesser amounts of 88,625 and 7,332 af, respec- tively. Annual CVP diversions varied from 125,970 af in 1977 to 679,298 af in 1993 with a 30-year annual average of 444,309 af. The Tule River and Pioneer Ditch both receive regulated releases from Success Reservoir. Tule River annual imports varied from 11,034 af in 1977 to 607,154 af in 1983 while the Pioneer Ditch varied from 3,445 af in 1973 to 5,874 af in 1990. The total natural runoff from the Deer Creek and White River from 1970-99 were 703,444 and 219,098 af, respectively. Deer Creek runoff varied from 4,082 af in 1992 to 103,716 af in 1983 while the White River runoff varied from 422 af in 1977 to 37,985 af in 1998.

From 1970-99, a total of 15 million af of surface water was applied by the service districts in the study area. The applied surface water varied from a low of 135,482 af in 1977 to a high of 708,293 af in 1996. The Lower Tule River Ir- rigation District and the Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District together account for 59% of the total applied surface water while occupying approximately 40% of the incorporated area in the study area. Over the 30-year base period, an estimated total of 3.5 million af of seepage conveyance loss occurred in all sur- face water channels. Seepage in the Tule River, Deer Creek, and White River accounted for 85% of the total seepage. Total annual seepage varied from a low of 8,128 af in 1977 to 467,084 af in 1983.

The UZWB model then calculates the monthly water storage changes in the soil root zone and deep vadose zone of each land unit, where the land unit is the UZWB model scale of resolution. It also models the intra-district surface water distribution system by estimating the monthly allocation of surface water to individual land units within each district. The main model outputs were the recharge to the unconfined aquifer from surface applied water and precipitation, and the groundwater pumping demand from the unconfined and confined aquifers. The recharge and groundwater pumping rates became input for the groundwater flow model.

The total annual agricultural and urban consumptive use ranged from 865,800 af in 1970 to 1,246,700 af in 1999. The estimated total pumping ranged from 148,100 af in 1978 to 570,000 af in 1990. As expected, pumping was heaviest during the droughts of 1975-77 and 1987-92, and lightest during the wet years of 1973, 1978, 1982-83, 1995, and 1998. Precipitation totals varied from 177,800 af in 1990 to 974,400 af in 1998. Diffuse recharge from surface applied water ranged from 64,800 af in 1992 to 350,100 af in 1983.

The net aquifer recharge for the entire study area was computed by ag- gregating the aquifer recharge and groundwater pumping of each land unit to this scale and adding the contribution to aquifer recharge from channel seepage. The monthly net recharge was then summed to produce a cumulative annual net recharge from 1970 to each fiscal water year from 1971-99. The water balance computed for the entire study area neglects horizontal groundwater inflows and outflows through its vertical boundaries. Groundwater fluxes undoubtedly exist along these boundaries. However, net fluxes are likely small in comparison to the total changes in storage due to vertical stresses applied to the entire study area (e.g. groundwater pumping, evapotranspiration, applied surface water, channel seepage). Horizontal groundwater flow on the inter-land unit and inter-district scales is expected to be more significant. For computing a total water balance, however, we made the simplifying assumption that the study area behaves as a relatively closed system where the net horizontal groundwater inflows through its vertical boundaries are small. Invoking this assumption, we then use the cumulative net recharge as an estimate of the cumulative groundwater storage change in the aquifer system. Ideally, verification of these estimates is performed by comparing them with an objective measure of the study area aquifer storage changes. However, changes in groundwater storage are not directly observable and must always be estimated using non-direct measures. As such, an objec- tive measure for verification does not exist. As an alternative, we compare the water balance model results with those produced by the water-table fluctuation (WTF) method.

The trends in cumulative annual groundwater storage changes computed from the water balance and the WTF method from 1970-99 were quite similar. The minimum and maximum differences between them were 2,450 af (1980) and 752,387 af (1991), respectively. From 1970, the maximum amount of ground- water accumulation occurred in the spring of 1987 with the WTF method and the water balance estimating positive storage changes of 1,146,286 and 898,128 af, respectively. The maximum groundwater overdraft occurred in 1993 with the WTF method and the water balance estimating negative storage changes of 1,610,210 and 1,218,566 af, respectively. The 1987 and 1993 fiscal water years marked the beginning and ending of a major 6-year drought in California, respectively.

Finally, the groundwater flow model calculates the changes in water levels in the aquifer system subject to transient groundwater recharge and pump- ing stresses. A post-processing routine calculates the cumulative groundwater storage changes over each district and the entire study area for each stress pe- riod. An automated calibration of the groundwater flow model was performed to refine the conceptual model of the hydrogeology and to estimate the spa- tial distributions of the aquifer system horizontal hydraulic conductivity. The calibration period of the groundwater flow model is 1970-85 and the validation period is 1986-99.

Three different conceptual models of the aquifer system horizontal hydraulic conductivity, Kh, structure were evaluated in the calibration process: 1) Khas an exponential function of the specific yield, Sy, distribution, 2) Kh as a linear function of the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil survey map- ping units, and 3) division of the model domain into square zones of uniform size. The models were calibrated against both spatially distributed hydraulic head targets and cumulative groundwater storage change targets for seven of the largest districts. The discretization of the model domain into uniform square zones provided the most robust Kh structure and produced the most reason- able estimates of hydraulic head and district groundwater storage changes from the three conceptual models over the 1971-85 calibration period. The calibrated model was then used to compute the annual net inter-district groundwater fluxes between adjacent districts. In general, groundwater flux directions were con- sistent with the large-scale hydraulic gradients. Annual inter-district net fluxes between adjacent districts ranged from negligibly small ( < 100 af) to as much as 80,000 af (e.g. net flux from Lower Tule River ID to Pixley ID). Net inter-district fluxes were generally a function of the local transmissivity, the length of the shared border between adjacent districts, and the differences in their surface water supplies.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
A geohydrologic reconnaissance of the Saratoga Spring area, Death Valley National Monument, California

Add to Downloads

A geohydrologic reconnaissance of the Saratoga Spring area, Death Valley National Monument, California
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | March 1, 1966...
Summary

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
A Guide for Using the Transient Ground-Water Flow Model of the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California
$0.00
Add to Downloads

A Guide for Using the Transient Ground-Water Flow Model of the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management | November 4, 2006...
Summary
This report is a guide for executing numerical simulations with the transient ground-water flow model of the Death Valley regional ground-water flow system,...
This report is a guide for executing numerical simulations with the transient ground-water flow model of the Death Valley regional ground-water flow system, Nevada and California using the U.S. Geological Survey modular finite-difference ground-water flow model, MODFLOW-2000. Model inputs, including observations of hydraulic head, discharge, and boundary flows, are summarized. Modification of the DVRFS transient ground-water model is discussed for two common uses of the Death Valley regional ground-water flow system model: predictive pumping scenarios that extend beyond the end of the model simulation period (1998), and model simulations with only steady-state conditions.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
A Guide to Water Quality Requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Add to Downloads

A Guide to Water Quality Requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Bill Lane Center for the American West | April 17, 2019...
Summary
California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that achieve sustainability within twenty years of Plan...
California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that achieve sustainability within twenty years of Plan adoption. Meeting this goal requires GSAs to avoid causing any of the six undesirable results that are central to SGMA, including undesirable result number 4 (UR No. 4) – “significant and unreasonable degraded water quality” throughout the basin.

Unlike most other undesirable results, UR No. 4 is the subject of robust federal, state and local regulatory regimes carried out by a number of different entities. While the State and Regional Water Resources Control Boards have the broadest responsibilities to protect groundwater quality, many other agencies also have relevant responsibilities.

The other distinctive feature of UR No. 4 is that groundwater management that prevents chronic lowering of groundwater levels may be insufficient to prevent significant and unreasonable degradation of groundwater quality. For example, significant changes in groundwater pumping can potentially mobilize naturally occurring constituents or cause migration or expansion of contaminant plumes even when the extracted amount is within the basin’s sustainable yield.

This Guide is intended to assist GSAs along with other agencies and stakeholders in understanding the meaning of UR No. 4, and to provide insights into how GSAs can successfully fulfill their legal responsibilities regarding groundwater quality. To avoid UR No. 4 under SGMA, this Guide recommends that GSAs do the following:

1. Understand the existing regulatory regime for groundwater quality and, as necessary, confer with entities that have regulatory authority over groundwater quality in their basins. (See Section 3 of this Guide).

2. Consider existing federal, state and local groundwater quality standards when developing groundwater quality minimum thresholds in their basins. Federal, state or local regulatory requirements were established after careful scientific study, legal review and procedural steps mandated by law. They are designed to protect public health and welfare, and they provide the clearest indication of the point beyond which there is a real risk of an undesirable result. (See Section 3.1).

3. Work closely with their Regional Water Quality Control Boards to address all groundwater quality issues. GSAs working in the Central Valley are especially encouraged to work with the Central Valley Regional Board to address salt and nutrient groundwater contamination. Programs in this region are continuing to evolve and will require that GSAs remain aware of changing regulatory requirements. Additionally, there are many groundwater quality monitoring efforts in this region that are generating a lot of groundwater quality data. These efforts should be aligned with any groundwater monitoring efforts being undertaken by GSAs. (See Sections 3.4.2 and 4.3.2).

4. Use existing groundwater quality data and information to (1) assess and prioritize groundwater quality issues in their basins, (2) meet requirements that GSPs include a description of current and historical groundwater conditions within the basin and (3) serve as either the basis for or a complement to local groundwater quality monitoring programs developed by GSAs.

5. Consider the following approach (discussed in Section 3.2) if they identify groundwater quality problems that either arose or were exacerbated after January 1, 2015:

• Where there is a significant groundwater quality problem that is clearly under the purview of another agency, confer with that agency and seek to confirm a reasonable plan to address the groundwater quality problem. If such a plan exists, the water quality problem and the plan should be referenced in the GSP. Section 3 and Table 1 in the Guide provide information on existing regulatory programs and the agencies responsible for their enforcement.

• Where a significant groundwater quality problem is not clearly under the purview of another agency, or the responsible agency is unable to confirm a reasonable plan to address the problem, confer with Regional or State Board staff, and perhaps affected parties, to identify a reasonable plan to address the problem. If no reasonable plan is identified, and remediating the problem is impractical, excessively wasteful of resources or otherwise infeasible, the GSA should include in the Plan an explanation of the problem and the reasons why remediation is impractical or infeasible.

6. Consider the following approach (discussed in Section 5) if they are planning projects or actions that may affect groundwater quality:

• Assess the potential impacts that the projects or actions are likely to have on groundwater quality over time. If the GSA concludes that the proposed project or action could have unacceptable adverse impacts on water quality, GSAs should consider options such as revising the project to avoid or mitigate the project’s impacts or developing alternative projects that avoid water quality problems.

• Ensure regulatory compliance for any GSP management actions (e.g., recharge projects, water banking) that have the potential to negatively impact water quality in their basins or adjacent basins. (Sections 3 and 5 provide information on regulatory requirements and considerations associated with groundwater recharge and active basin management, respectively.)

7. Develop supplemental groundwater monitoring networks where necessary. Many basins being managed under SGMA have significant water quality data gaps. Thus, GSAs in many basins will likely need to develop or expand local groundwater quality monitoring networks. Decisions to do so should be informed by (1) the extent and quality of existing groundwater quality in the region, (2) the level of groundwater development, (3) the severity of existing groundwater quality issues and their proximity to domestic or irrigation wells, public water supply sources or other vulnerable users, (4) current or proposed groundwater management actions or projects, (5) local resources, and (6) the hydrogeologic complexity of the basin.

GSAs are not responsible for enforcing existing water quality standards or collecting data to support existing water quality programs. However, they are responsible for avoiding “significant and unreasonable” degradation of water quality in their basins. Working with federal, state and local water quality monitoring and enforcement entities will help GSAs understand groundwater quality issues in their basins, enabling them to develop GSPs that avoid UR No. 4.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details

Search

Groundwater Exchange

Search

Browse All Documents

Type

Topic

Keywords

Publisher

Publication Year

Hydrologic Region

Index By

“Good Luck Fixing the Problem”: Small Low-Income Community Participation in Collaborative Groundwater Governance and Implications for Drinking Water Source Protection

“Good Luck Fixing the Problem”: Small Low-Income Community Participation in Collaborative Groundwater Governance and Implications for Drinking Water Source Protection

Become a member to access this feature

2016 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition Santa Maria Valley Management Area

2016 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition Santa Maria Valley Management Area

Become a member to access this feature

2017 Salinas Valley Groundwater Level Contours & Seawater Intrusion Maps

2017 Salinas Valley Groundwater Level Contours & Seawater Intrusion Maps

Become a member to access this feature

2017 SGMA Annual Report South American Subbasin (5-021.65) Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority

2017 SGMA Annual Report South American Subbasin (5-021.65) Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority

Become a member to access this feature

A Bayesian approach to infer nitrogen loading rates from crop and land-use types surrounding private wells in the Central Valley, California

A Bayesian approach to infer nitrogen loading rates from crop and land-use types surrounding private wells in the Central Valley, California

Become a member to access this feature

A brief geologic and hydrologic reconnaissance of the Furnace Creek Wash area, Death Valley National Monument, California

A brief geologic and hydrologic reconnaissance of the Furnace Creek Wash area, Death Valley National Monument, California

Become a member to access this feature

A Conjunctive Use Model for the Tule Groundwater Sub-Basin Area in the Southern-Eastern San Joaquin Valley, California

A Conjunctive Use Model for the Tule Groundwater Sub-Basin Area in the Southern-Eastern San Joaquin Valley, California

Become a member to access this feature

A geohydrologic reconnaissance of the Saratoga Spring area, Death Valley National Monument, California

A geohydrologic reconnaissance of the Saratoga Spring area, Death Valley National Monument, California

Become a member to access this feature

A Guide for Using the Transient Ground-Water Flow Model of the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California

A Guide for Using the Transient Ground-Water Flow Model of the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California

Become a member to access this feature

A Guide to Water Quality Requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

A Guide to Water Quality Requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Become a member to access this feature