Groundwater Quality in the San Francisco Bay Groundwater Basins, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | March 29th, 2013

Groundwater Quality in the Shallow Aquifers of the Madera– Chowchilla and Kings Subbasins, San Joaquin Valley, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | January 8th, 2018

Groundwater Quality in the Sierra Nevada, California

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

Groundwater provides more than 40 percent of California’s drinking water. To protect this vital resource, the State of California created the Groundwater Ambient Monito

Groundwater provides more than 40 percent of California’s drinking water. To protect this vital resource, the State of California created the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The Priority Basin Project (PBP) of the GAMA Program provides a comprehensive assessment of the State’s groundwater quality and increases public access to groundwater-quality information. The Sierra Nevada Regional study unit constitutes one of the study units being evaluated. The Sierra Nevada Regional (SNR) study unit covers approximately 25,000 square miles and includes the Sierra Nevada mountain and foothill regions. The study unit was divided into four study areas corresponding to the four major rock types present in the region: granitic rocks, metamorphic rocks, sedimentary deposits, and volcanic rocks (Shelton and others, 2010). In contrast to most other study units evaluated by the GAMA PBP, the SNR study unit consists primarily of fractured-bedrock aquifers. Most of the Sierra Nevada consists of granitic and metamorphic rocks. Groundwater is in fractures in the rocks. The fracture systems may be interconnected or isolated, resulting in variability in water levels, well yields, and water quality on local and regional scales (California Department of Water Resources, 2003). Sedimentary basins contain glacial, alluvial fan, fluvial, and lake sediments. Aquifers composed of different materials commonly contain groundwater with different chemical compositions.

Groundwater Quality near the Montebello Oil Field, Los Angeles County, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | February 6th, 2023

Groundwater quality and potential sources and migration pathways of chemical constituents associated with hydrocarbon-bearing formations were assessed by the U.S. Geologi

Groundwater quality and potential sources and migration pathways of chemical constituents associated with hydrocarbon-bearing formations were assessed by the U.S. Geological Survey for the California State Water Resources Control Board Oil and Gas Regional Monitoring Program (RMP). Groundwater samples were collected as part of the RMP from 21 preexisting wells used for public supply, monitoring, or irrigation in and near the Montebello Oil Field and analyzed for constituents associated with hydrocarbon-bearing formations and constituents used to identify recently recharged groundwater and older groundwater. The newly collected RMP data were supplemented with historical sample data from 849 groundwater wells and analyzed with respect to explanatory factors that have the potential to influence water quality. Potential sources and migration pathways of fluids (water, gas, or oil) from hydrocarbon-bearing formations that could affect groundwater quality in the Montebello Oil Field include large volumes of recycled produced water (water withdrawn from an oil well and brought to the surface that may include oil, water, and gas from the geologic formation and water or gas injected for enhanced recovery) that have been reinjected since the 1960s to enhance oil production, oil and gas wells with well-integrity issues, and oil and gas wells with an uncemented annulus that intersects groundwater resource zones. Trace amounts of dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons, thermogenic gas (propane through pentane range), or both, were detected in seven groundwater samples collected in 2014 and 2018 as part of the RMP. Five of those samples also contained manufactured volatile organic compounds and at least some modern-age groundwater (recharged during or after 1953), indicating that the hydrocarbons could have originated from surficial, or shallow, sources unrelated to oil and gas development. Two samples contained low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons (less than 0.1 microgram per liter) and did not contain detections of manufactured volatile organic compounds in pre-modern groundwater. These samples were collected from relatively deep wells (greater than 140 meters below land surface) with perforations completed in marine sediments that may contain water with similar compositions to produced water. The RMP sample results and available historical data in and near the Montebello Oil Field did not provide conclusive evidence that oil and gas development has adversely affected groundwater resources. All samples with detectable petroleum hydrocarbons, thermogenic gases, or both, were collected from sites that also are within 500 meters of anthropogenic hydrocarbon sources not associated with oil and gas development or sources. In addition, naturally occurring sources of hydrocarbons that exist at intervals shallower than, or are in areas outside of, economically productive oil- and gas-producing zones could affect groundwater quality. A definitive analysis of relations of groundwater quality to potential anthropogenic and natural explanatory factors was not possible because of the low density of new and historical sampling data, particularly in parts of the Montebello Oil Field where the largest relative risks to groundwater from hydrocarbon-bearing formations exist. Areas to consider for more detailed monitoring and analysis in the future that may present the largest relative potential risks to groundwater quality include (1) areas downgradient from historical surface ponds and sumps and (2) areas with co-located high net injection (oil reservoir injection exceeds production), old oil and gas wells that may be more likely to develop well-integrity issues than newer wells, and oil and gas wells with uncemented boreholes intersecting groundwater zones. To help fill gaps resulting from sparse groundwater wells, temperature and resistivity borehole log data could be analyzed to locate anomalies that identify potential areas where relatively warm or saline water from deeper hydrocarbon-bearing formations is present in groundwater.

Groundwater Quality of the Lucerne Valley Groundwater Basin, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | July 7th, 2022

Anthropogenic activities, including groundwater withdrawals, return flow from irrigated agriculture, and treated wastewater-effluent disposal have the potential to affect

Anthropogenic activities, including groundwater withdrawals, return flow from irrigated agriculture, and treated wastewater-effluent disposal have the potential to affect groundwater quality in the Lucerne Valley groundwater basin, located in the southwest Mojave Desert. Questions regarding the current state and potential future of groundwater quality in this basin were addressed by (1) considering groundwater data from and findings of historical water-quality studies, (2) evaluating recent (1990–2021) U.S. Geological Survey water-quality and geochemical-tracer data, and (3) assessing groundwater-quality results from samples collected in 2021 to better understand the transport of applied treated wastewater effluent in the subsurface and associated effects of this practice on water quality. As observed by previous studies, differences in groundwater quality existed among the upper, middle, and lower aquifers of the Lucerne Valley groundwater basin, with the lower aquifer characterized by high dissolved-solid content relative to the middle and upper aquifers. Stable and radioisotope tracers indicate that most of the groundwater sampled in the basin was recharged during cooler, wetter climate conditions than those of the present day (2022). Analyses of the 2021 samples collected to examine the subsurface transport of applied treated wastewater effluent were not conclusive but indicate that water from applied treated wastewater effluent is currently (2022) limited to the upper aquifer and likely to remain so given the extensive confining unit below the upper aquifer.

Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy for the Central Valley Region, a Roadmap - Addendum 2015/2016

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) | May 7th, 2017

The Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy for the Central Valley Region, a Roadmap (GWQ Strategy) was developed through active stakeholder outreach and approved by the

The Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy for the Central Valley Region, a Roadmap (GWQ Strategy) was developed through active stakeholder outreach and approved by the Central Valley Water Board (September 2010 Resolution R5-2010-0095.) The GWQ Strategy is intended to provide a long range planning document that defines the regulatory programs to be enhanced, and identify ways to expand on all partnering opportunities to protect groundwater quality. Within the GWQ Strategy, actions were identified to implement groundwater quality protection. In the five years since the GWQ Strategy was approved, work has been completed on some actions, progress has been made on others, and new or emerging issues have been identified. This Addendum to the GWQ Strategy is intended to provide an update on any sections where changes may have occurred such as: new regulations or policies, programs have been added or modified, and new or emerging issues have been identified. In this Addendum, only the sections and/or subsections have been updated where new information was available since the GWQ Strategy was approved. The sections that have had the most extensive changes are sections 3, 4, and 6. In the last five years, there have been many legislative actions, bond initiatives, and new statewide policies that warranted updates to subsection: 3.2. Section 4 describes the Groundwater Quality Protection Programs the Central Valley Water Board implements. The most extensive updates to this section was to describe changes in program implementation for subsections, 4.1.1 Confined Animal Facilities, 4.1.2 Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, and the addition of a new Oil Field Program under section 4.1.7. Section 6 is the Roadmap that identifies actions to be taken to improve groundwater quality. Updates to this section modify the numbering system used to identify the actions and includes nine new actions that have been prioritized using criteria from the GWQ Strategy. Some of these actions are directly related to new regulations, on-going drought related issues, or continuation of work identified in the GWQ Strategy in 2010.

Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy: A "Roadmap" for the Central Valley Region

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) | January 8th, 2010

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (Central Valley Water Board) recognizes that past regulatory approaches have not protected all

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (Central Valley Water Board) recognizes that past regulatory approaches have not protected all groundwater from historical and current practices associated with land applications of waste. For example, in some areas of the Central Valley Region groundwater produced from some aquifers that serve individual and community drinking water systems have been polluted and are unsafe to drink. In response, the Central Valley Water Board adopted Resolution R5-2008-0181 directing staff to develop a Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy (Roadmap) through an active stakeholder process. Developing a Roadmap for the Central Valley Region is not initiating a new regulatory program. This Roadmap is intended to be an overarching framework or an outline for long range planning. By presenting it to the Central Valley Water Board it allows the Board review and approval of the overarching plan as well as an opportunity to provide direction to staff. Further, it defines the regulatory programs to be enhanced, and identifies ways to expand on all partnering opportunities with other federal, state, and/or local agencies to protect groundwater quality. Following approval of the Roadmap, workplan(s) will be developed for the higher priority future actions to provide a more detailed description of tasks, timelines, and resources required to implement those actions. In order to make this Roadmap useful to the public, policy-makers, and the Central Valley Water Board, a starting point to map a course for the future had to be identified. The starting point for the Roadmap is the background (Section 3) information on agencies and organization, the Central Valley Region’s basins, and primary constituents of concern. Current Groundwater Quality Protection Programs (Section 4) being implemented by the Central Valley Water Board describe how groundwater quality is being protected now. To assist in the evaluation of existing groundwater quality protection programs and identification of future actions, Stakeholder’s Concerns and Issues (Section 5) were also considered. The final section of the Strategy is the “Roadmap” (Section 6) which focuses on future actions that can be implemented within the next five to twenty years. To illustrate the Roadmap, a description is provided of three basic elements: a) future actions; b) how the actions are prioritized; and c) resource needs to implement the actions. Implementation of future actions, are not limited to the Central Valley Water Board. Future actions may be implemented by: the Central Valley Water Board; other agencies or organization; or through a partnership between agencies.

Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy: A “Roadmap” for the Central Valley Region

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) | August 2nd, 2010

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (Central Valley Water Board) recognizes that past regulatory approaches have not protected all

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (Central Valley Water Board) recognizes that past regulatory approaches have not protected all groundwater from historical and current practices associated with land applications of waste. For example, in some areas of the Central Valley Region groundwater produced from some aquifers that serve individual and community drinking water systems have been polluted and are unsafe to drink. In response, the Central Valley Water Board adopted Resolution R5-2008-0181 directing staff to develop a Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy (Roadmap) through an active stakeholder process.  Developing a Roadmap for the Central Valley Region is not initiating a new regulatory program. This Roadmap is intended to be an overarching framework or an outline for long range planning. By presenting it to the Central Valley Water Board it allows the Board review and approval of the overarching plan as well as an opportunity to provide direction to staff. Further, it defines the regulatory programs to be enhanced, and identifies ways to expand on all partnering opportunities with other federal, state, and/or local agencies to protect groundwater quality. Following approval of the Roadmap, workplan(s) will be developed for the higher priority future actions to provide a more detailed description of tasks, timelines, and resources required to implement those actions.  In order to make this Roadmap useful to the public, policy-makers, and the Central Valley Water Board, a starting point to map a course for the future had to be identified. The starting point for the Roadmap is the background (Section 3) information on agencies and organization, the Central Valley Region’s basins, and primary constituents of concern. Current Groundwater Quality Protection Programs (Section 4) being implemented by the Central Valley Water Board describe how groundwater quality is being protected now. To assist in the evaluation of existing groundwater quality protection programs and identification of future actions, Stakeholder’s Concerns and Issues (Section 5) were also considered.  The final section of the Strategy is the “Roadmap” (Section 6) which focuses on future actions that can be implemented within the next five to twenty years. To illustrate the Roadmap, a description is provided of three basic elements: a) future actions; b) how the actions are prioritized; and c) resource needs to implement the actions. Implementation of future actions, are not limited to the Central Valley Water Board. Future actions may be implemented by: the Central Valley Water Board; other agencies or organization; or through a partnership between agencies.  Also: Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy for the Central Valley Region, a Roadmap - Addendum 2015/2016 Home page of Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy for the Central Valley Region, R-5

Groundwater residence time estimates obscured by anthropogenic carbonate

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | April 21st, 2021

Groundwater is an important source of drinking and irrigation water. Dating groundwater informs its vulnerability to contamination and aids in calibrating flow models. He

Groundwater is an important source of drinking and irrigation water. Dating groundwater informs its vulnerability to contamination and aids in calibrating flow models. Here, we report measurements of multiple age tracers (14C, 3H, 39Ar, and 85Kr) and parameters relevant to dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) from 17 wells in California’s San Joaquin Valley (SJV), an agricultural region that is heavily reliant on groundwater. We find evidence for a major mid-20th century shift in groundwater DIC input from mostly closed- to mostly open-system carbonate dissolution, which we suggest is driven by input of anthropogenic carbonate soil amendments. Crucially, enhanced open-system dissolution, in which DIC equilibrates with soil CO2, fundamentally affects the initial 14C activity of recently recharged groundwater. Conventional 14C dating of deeper SJV groundwater, assuming an open system, substantially overestimates residence time and thereby underestimates susceptibility to modern contamination. Because carbonate soil amendments are ubiquitous, other groundwater-reliant agricultural regions may be similarly affected.

Groundwater salinity in the southern San Joaquin Valley

American Association of Petroleum Geologists | August 1st, 2018

Water salinity in the San Joaquin Valley is a function of depth, location, and stratigraphy. This paper presents a reconnaissance study of water salinity within Kern Coun

Water salinity in the San Joaquin Valley is a function of depth, location, and stratigraphy. This paper presents a reconnaissance study of water salinity within Kern County, California, using chemical analyses from oil field produced water and water wells as well as geophysical logs. Log analysis indicates that the base of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) (<10,000 mg/L) slopes from northwest to southeast. Lab analyses show that USDWs extend to depths as great as 1900 m (6233.5 ft) southeast of Bakersfield. This area receives the greatest amount of fresh water recharge from streams flowing westward from the Sierras. The marine Olcese Sand is more saline than the overlying and underlying aquifers and separates the aquifers into an upper and lower USDW. Log analysis also indicates a zone of higher salinity separating zones of lower salinity in this area. Salinities in the west are higher, and depths to base USDW are variable. Although waters in many sands in the western valley are more saline than 3000 ppm total dissolved solids (TDS), numerous wells contain waters between 3000 and 10,000 ppm at depths of less than 600 m (1968.5 ft), particularly in the nonmarine Tulare Formation. At North Belridge field, a salinity reversal is apparent below 2100 m (6890 ft). Waters above this depth are approxi- mately 40,000 mg/L TDS, whereas water salinities below 2200 m (7218 ft) range from 10,000 to 32,000 mg/L. Extremely high salinities are found in several wells less than 30 m (98 ft) deep, primarily in the northwestern area. These may be perched aquifers or lie adjacent to unmapped agricultural drainage sumps and do not reflect salinities in the regional aquifer.