"Incomplete” Determination of the 2020 Groundwater Sustainability Plans Submitted for the San Joaquin Valley – Madera Subbasin

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | September 22nd, 2022

The Department of Water Resources (Department) has evaluated the four groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) submitted for the San Joaquin Valley – Madera Subbasin (Su

The Department of Water Resources (Department) has evaluated the four groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) submitted for the San Joaquin Valley – Madera Subbasin (Subbasin), as well as the materials considered to be part of the required coordination agreement. Collectively, the four GSPs and the coordination agreement are referred to as the Plan for the Subbasin. The Department has determined that the Plan is “incomplete” pursuant to Section 355.2(e)(2) of the GSP Regulations. The Department based its incomplete determination on recommendations from the Staff Report, included as an enclosure to the attached Statement of Findings, which describes that the Subbasin’s Plan does not satisfy the objectives of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) nor substantially comply with the GSP Regulations. The Staff Report also provides corrective actions which the Department recommends the Subbasin’s 7 groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) review while determining how and whether to address the deficiencies in a coordinated manner. The Subbasin’s GSAs have 180 days, the maximum allowed by the GSP Regulations, to address the identified deficiencies. Where addressing the deficiencies requires modification of the Plan, the GSAs must adopt those modifications into their respective GSPs and all applicable coordination agreement materials, or otherwise demonstrate that those modifications are part of the Plan before resubmitting it to the Department for evaluation no later than March 21, 2023.

“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 10th, 2020

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 plann

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.

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

Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority, GEI Consultants Inc. | April 1st, 2018

The Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA) has prepared an Annual Report describing groundwater conditions in the South American Subbasin for the 2017

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.

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 17th, 2019

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that ach

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.

A simmering revolt against groundwater cutbacks in California

Stanford University Bill Lane Center for the American West | December 14th, 2022

In 2014, California legislators, focused on groundwater’s accelerating decline during a prolonged drought, passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Its impera

In 2014, California legislators, focused on groundwater’s accelerating decline during a prolonged drought, passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Its imperatives: keeping groundwater levels sustainable by 2040 and keeping control of groundwater in local hands. Both goals are now in limbo. As the state endures yet another prolonged drought and state water managers have balked at approving plans covering the basins at greatest risk – the vast majority in the San Joaquin Valley – more growers in a few of the new local groundwater agencies are in revolt at the new rules that will curtail access to the water they once took for granted.

A State Role in Supporting Groundwater Trading with Safeguards for Vulnerable Users: Findings and Next Steps

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | May 18th, 2022

In those parts of California where groundwater pumping has long exceeded replenishment, people are striving to bring groundwater basins into sustainable conditions within

In those parts of California where groundwater pumping has long exceeded replenishment, people are striving to bring groundwater basins into sustainable conditions within 20 years, between 2040 and 2042, as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires. In some areas, groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) – the local agencies tasked with sustainable groundwater management – are beginning to work with other entities and stakeholders to discuss and experiment with the idea of giving groundwater pumpers allocations – allowances to remove a certain amount of water from a groundwater basin – and allowing them to either use their allocation individually or trade allocations between specified parties. Ideally, groundwater trading could ease the economic disruption of cutting back the overall amount of water pumped from a groundwater basin; growers who have less need for pumping could sell their allocation to others willing to pay for it, helping buyers keep their operations functional while compensating sellers. But the concept of groundwater trading raises many questions: How would wetlands, streams, and other ecosystems fed by aquifers be treated in a groundwater trading program? Would operators of farms who lack the resources of larger neighbors be able to benefit from trading? How might trading affect people who depend upon a household well or communities that need reliable groundwater supplies for homes and businesses? How can GSAs work with local stakeholders to develop, implement, and oversee trading programs that help with sustainable groundwater management? There is a State interest behind all of these questions – and a clear need for a focused discussion about groundwater trading.

Adapting to Climate Change and Drought in Selected California Groundwater Basins: Local Achievements and Challenges

California Natural Resources Agency | August 27th, 2018

Climate change projections are for higher temperatures and extreme droughts by the end of the 21st century. This will alter the natural recharge of groundwater, including

Climate change projections are for higher temperatures and extreme droughts by the end of the 21st century. This will alter the natural recharge of groundwater, including decreased inflow from runoff, increased evaporative losses, and warmer and shorter winter seasons, impacts that are likely to exacerbate already existing groundwater overdraft in many basins. Additionally, the imported surface water that can be delivered from the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) to areas reliant on this water for groundwater recharge and consumptive use is projected to be less reliable and more expensive. Yet groundwater is a critical water supply source during drought when it compensates for reduced surface water supplies. The need for proactive adaptation strategies to address the extreme droughts projected under climate change are frequently discussed, yet there are limited examples of such groundwater management strategies. This paper therefore explores:  1) How groundwater management agencies are planning for drought  2) What new approaches are currently being used that show promise for addressing the more extreme droughts projected under climate change? 

Addressing Regional Surface Water Depletions in California: A Proposed Approach for Compliance with The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) | August 15th, 2018

Successful implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), including its provision to avoid significant and unreasonable depletion of interconnecte

Successful implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), including its provision to avoid significant and unreasonable depletion of interconnected surface water, is a high priority for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). The lack of established mechanisms for addressing depletions of interconnected surface water makes the implementation of this aspect of SGMA especially challenging. Accordingly, EDF offers recommendations to address the requirements of the law related to depletion of interconnected surface water, commonly referred to as “Undesirable Result No. 6” (UR #6). We propose an approach that we believe provides a reasonable balance among the conflicting factors of rigor, cost, uncertainty, and enforceability that weigh on the implementation of this requirement. Our goal is to offer a pathway to achieve the fundamental and critical objective of UR#6, which aims to prevent significant impacts to water users and ecosystems that depend on streams and rivers that may be depleted by groundwater withdrawals, in a way that is not unreasonably costly or unproductively burdensome on the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), water users, and state agencies who will bear most of the burden of complying with—or ensuring compliance with—SGMA.

Advancing Strategic Land Repurposing and Groundwater Sustainability in California

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) | March 26th, 2021

For decades, California has been on a steady trajectory toward water scarcity, which is now exacerbated by climate change. More frequent and intense droughts and incre

For decades, California has been on a steady trajectory toward water scarcity, which is now exacerbated by climate change. More frequent and intense droughts and increased demands have affected the reliability of surface water supplies. As a result, many have looked to groundwater to fill the gap. Groundwater overpumping has resulted in adverse impacts such as reduction in groundwater storage, subsidence, water quality degradation, sea water intrusion, wells going dry and depletion of interconnected surface waters throughout many areas in California’s San Joaquin Valley. These impacts led to the passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) by the state Legislature in 2014, which mandates sustainable use of groundwater by 2040 for the most critically overdrafted basins.

Aliso Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Aliso Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency | January 17th, 2020