Navigating Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment (CLEE) | March 28th, 2018

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), passed in 2014, recognizes and addresses connections between surface water and groundwater. The st

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), passed in 2014, recognizes and addresses connections between surface water and groundwater. The statute is California’s first statewide law to explicitly reflect the fact that surface water and groundwater are frequently interconnected and that groundwater management can impact groundwater-dependent ecosystems, surface water flows, and the beneficial uses of those flows. As such, SGMA partially remedies the historically problematic practice of treating groundwater and surface water as legally distinct resources. SGMA requires groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to manage groundwater to avoid six undesirable results, including significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of surface water. While this aspect of SGMA is clearly important, significant uncertainties exist regarding how GSAs will actually define and achieve this goal. Addressing SGMA’s requirements for groundwater-surface water interactions will be difficult. Defining the issues at stake in any given basin, let alone successfully balancing the range of uncertainties and potentially conficting interests, will pose challenges for many GSAs. No clear, pre-defned formula exists to guide GSAs in determining what significant and unreasonable depletions of interconnected surface water will be, or whether planned actions will sufficiently avoid them. Yet they are required to do so. Many GSAs will face pressure to aggressively address impacts on surface water in their basin. Many will face equal or greater pressure not to draw the line. Nevertheless, it will fall to the GSAs to make a determination, and to defend it in their groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs). Therefore, GSAs will likely take on some level of risk—of successful political opposition to their GSP, of successful legal challenges to their GSP, of their GSP performing ineffectively, or of all of these outcomes. Given the aggressive timeline inherent to SGMA, addressing this risk early will be crucial for preserving management options. Challenges and risk are not the whole story, however. The process of addressing groundwater-surface water interactions also ofders GSAs an opportunity to help communities and other stakeholders resolve, or avoid, difficult conflicts, and to do so in lasting ways. While California law has only recently begun to seriously address conflicts between surface and groundwater uses, those conflicts have been occurring for decades, and in some places for over a century. SGMA, in other words, did not create conflict between groundwater pumping and beneficial uses of surface water; instead it created an opportunity—as well as an obligation—to respond to those challenges. Embracing that opportunity will not be easy, but GSAs that take SGMA as an opportunity to resolve longstanding issues can do lasting good. The research presented here examines some of the legal and institutional questions that will inevitably arise as GSAs seek to address groundwater-surface water interactions under SGMA. The core goal of this report is to help parties identify and address these questions, and ultimately to let GSAs and stakeholders manage groundwater-surface water interactions proactively and effectively.

NEPA and CEQA: Integrating Federal and State Environmental Reviews

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) | February 18th, 2014

This handbook provides advisory guidance to Federal, state, and local agencies and others regarding projects that are subject to both the National Environmental Policy Ac

This handbook provides advisory guidance to Federal, state, and local agencies and others regarding projects that are subject to both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Once President Nixon signed NEPA on January 1, 1970, and California Governor Reagan followed suit signing CEQA into law on September 18 of the same year, these laws expressly required the incorporation of environmental values into governmental decision making. Those statutes require Federal, state, and local agencies to analyze and disclose the potential environmental impacts of their decisions, and, in the case of CEQA, to minimize significant adverse environmental effects to the extent feasible. NEPA was codified under Title 42 of the United States Code, in section 4331 et seq. (42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq.). Under NEPA, Congress established the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to ensure that Federal agencies meet their obligations of the Act. CEQ’s Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (hereinafter CEQ NEPA Regulations) are in Title 40 of Code of Federal Regulations section 1500 et seq. (40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq.). In California, CEQA was codified under Division 13 of California’s Public Resources Code, in sections 21000 et seq. (Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). The Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act are in Title 14 of California’s Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.; hereafter CEQA Guidelines). NEPA and CEQA are similar, both in intent and in the review process (the analyses, public engagement, and document preparation) that they dictate. Importantly, both statutes encourage a joint Federal and state review where a project requires both Federal and state approvals. Indeed, in such cases, a joint review process can avoid redundancy, improve efficiency and interagency cooperation, and be easier for applicants and citizens to navigate. Despite the similarities between NEPA and CEQA, there are several differences that require careful coordination between the Federal and state agencies responsible for complying with NEPA and CEQA. Conflict arising from these differences can create unnecessary delay, confusion, and legal vulnerability. Federal, state and local agencies have cooperated in the environmental review of projects ranging from infrastructure to renewable energy permitting. As the state and Federal governments pursue shared goals, there will be a continued need for an efficient, transparent environmental review process that meets the requirements of both NEPA and CEQA. Recognizing the importance of implementing NEPA and CEQA efficiently and effectively, the CEQ and the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) developed this handbook to provide advisory guidance on conducting joint NEPA and CEQA review processes. The CEQ oversees Federal agency implementation of NEPA, which includes writing the CEQ NEPA Regulations1 and preparing guidance and handbooks for Federal agencies. OPR plays several roles in the administration of CEQA, including developing the CEQA Guidelines in coordination with the California Natural Resources Agency, providing technical assistance to state and local agencies, and coordinating state level review of CEQA documents. The purpose of this handbook is to provide practitioners with an overview of the NEPA and CEQA processes, and to provide practical suggestions on developing a single environmental review process that can meet the requirements of both statutes. This handbook contains three main sections. First is a “Question and Answer” section that addresses the key similarities and differences between NEPA and CEQA. This section compares each law’s requirements or common practices, and identifies possible strategies for meeting the requirements of both laws. These strategies are not meant to prescribe methods that agencies must use; rather, this handbook provides suggestions that will help agencies identify and think through potential issues. Indeed, developing a common understanding of the NEPA and CEQA review processes and their differences at the beginning of a joint review process may be among the most important ways to conduct an efficient and effective review process. Second, this handbook provides a framework for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between two or more agencies entering a joint NEPA/CEQA review process. MOUs can clarify responsibilities and avoid potential conflicts. The MOU framework in this handbook highlights a number of issues that agencies can consider before embarking on their joint effort. This handbook is not intended to replace or replicate any existing MOUs; rather, it raises topics agencies might consider incorporating into their own MOUs. Much like the Q&A document, a key goal of this framework is to encourage state and Federal agencies to consider and resolve potential challenges common to joint NEPA/CEQA review processes in order to avoid complications late in the review process. Finally, the third section addresses the California Energy Commission (CEC) licensing process for decisions on thermal power plants 50 megawatts and larger. This licensing process is a certified regulatory program under CEQA and therefore the process and documents prepared by the CEC serve as the functional equivalent of a CEQA review (CEQA Guidelines, § 15251, subd. (j)). As noted above, this handbook is advisory and does not supplant the administrative regulations set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, or the CEQ NEPA Regulations. Agencies conducting an environmental review must also take into account any additional requirements or time periods established in an individual agency’s administrative regulations or procedures implementing NEPA and CEQA, which could prescribe additional or more stringent requirements than the CEQ NEPA Regulations and the CEQA Guidelines.

New Life for Eroding Shorelines: Beach and Marsh Edge Change in the San Francisco Estuary

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | April 1st, 2020

Wind, waves, storms, and changing water levels have reshaped shorelines for millennia and continue to do so today. The current shape of the San Francisco (SF) Estuary sho

Wind, waves, storms, and changing water levels have reshaped shorelines for millennia and continue to do so today. The current shape of the San Francisco (SF) Estuary shoreline is relatively new; 15,000 years ago, the California shoreline was west of the Farallon Islands and 140 meters below its current level (Cohen and Laws 1992, Malamud-Roam et al. 2007). By approximately 6,000 years ago (the end of the last glacial epoch), the sea had risen to nearly its present level and filled what is now San Francisco Bay, allowing marshes to form and maintain themselves (Atwater 1979). More recently, humans have changed the shape of the shoreline. During the 1850s, many marshes expanded extensively due to increased sediment supply from hydraulic mining in the Sierra Nevada (Gilbert 1917, Goals Project 1999). Diking, dredging, and filling of marshes for agricultural and urban development began in the late 19th century and continued through the first half of the 20th century.  Today, humans continue to reshape the shoreline through continued diking, dredging and filling as well as restoration projects, urbanization of watersheds, ferry wakes, and many other means. The most wide-ranging impact of human activity on the shape of shorelines is global climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions, which is accelerating the rate of sea level rise worldwide (OPC 2018). Sea level rise is likely to cause much more dramatic changes in the shape of shorelines than have been seen in recent centuries. The magnitude and pace of change will depend on the rate of sea level rise, existing shoreline conditions, and the ability of shorelines to adapt. 

North American diadromous fishes: Drivers of decline and potential for recovery in the Anthropocene

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | January 28th, 2022

Diadromous fishes migrate between freshwater and marine habitats to complete their life cycle, a complexity that makes them vulnerable to the adverse effects of current

Diadromous fishes migrate between freshwater and marine habitats to complete their life cycle, a complexity that makes them vulnerable to the adverse effects of current and past human activities on land and in the oceans. Many North American species are critically endangered, and entire populations have been lost. Major factors driving declines include overfishing, pollution, water withdrawals, aquaculture, non-native species, habitat degradation, over-zealous application of hatcheries designed to mitigate effects of other factors, and effects of climate change. Perhaps, the most broadly tractable and effective factors affecting diadromous fishes are removals of the dams that prevent or hinder their migrations, alter their environment, and often favor non-native biotic communities. Future survival of many diadromous fish populations may depend on this.

North Bay Mercury Biosentinel Project 2016 - 2017

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | March 1st, 2018

Concentrations of methylmercury throughout San Francisco Bay are high enough to warrant concern for the health of humans and wildlife. Large-scale tidal wetland restorat

Concentrations of methylmercury throughout San Francisco Bay are high enough to warrant concern for the health of humans and wildlife. Large-scale tidal wetland restoration is currently being implemented as a means of increasing populations of wildlife species of concern. There is concern that these restoration activities may lead to increased concentrations of methylmercury in the estuarine food web and exacerbate the existing methylmercury problem.

Not All Rivers Are Created Equal: The Importance of Spring-Fed Rivers under a Changing Climate

Water (MDPI) | June 12th, 2021

In the Western United States, volcanic spring-fed rivers are anticipated to become increasingly more important for salmonids and other native fishes, as these rivers wil

In the Western United States, volcanic spring-fed rivers are anticipated to become increasingly more important for salmonids and other native fishes, as these rivers will retain cold-water habitats as the climate warms. Despite this, little is known about the hydro-biogeochemical interactions within these ecosystems. A review of existing literature on spring-fed rivers, coupled with a decade of research on volcanic spring-fed rivers of northern California, finds that these systems are exceptionally productive and exhibit stable environmental conditions. These unique conditions stem from hydrogeologic processes typical of young volcanic terrains. Aquatic macrophytes, common to some nutrient-rich spring-fed systems, play a disproportionate role in hydrologic and geomorphic processes by facilitating ecological interactions and velocity conditions that improve juvenile salmonid growth. We find that volcanic spring-fed rivers are also resilient to climate change, due not only to their ability to dampen water temperature changes through deep groundwater flow but also because of their nutrient-driven high ecosystem productivity, which may enable cold-water species to metabolically compensate for marginal increases in water temperature. Understanding the fundamental geomorphic and ecological differences between these rare ecosystems and their numerically dominant runoff rivers is essential for developing long-term conservation strategies for cold-water species under a rapidly changing climate.

Notice of Entry of Order for Implementation of Preliminary Injunction – Case No. Bcv-22-103220-Gap, Bring Back the Kern et al v. City of Bakersfield et al

Superior Court of California, County of Kern | November 14th, 2023

Novel aquatic ecosystems: The new reality for streams in California and other Mediterranean climate regions

River Research and Applications (Wiley) | September 24th, 2013

Temporary streams in California and other Mediterranean climate areas are among the aquatic habitats most altered by human actions and by invasions by alien species. They

Temporary streams in California and other Mediterranean climate areas are among the aquatic habitats most altered by human actions and by invasions by alien species. They typically support novel ecosystems, defined as ecosystems dominated by new combinations of organisms in highly altered habitats. Although these new ecosystems have many attributes of the ecosystems they replaced, such as native species, they typically contain many new interactions among species. Managers need to recognize this reality to find ways to direct change towards novel ecosystems with desirable features, including native species. The concept of reconciliation ecology is a practical approach to living with the new reality; it includes actively guiding ecosystem change, as illustrated by Putah Creek, Cosumnes River, Eel River and Six Bit Gulch in California. The first three waterways are all highly altered and managed with varying degrees of success to favour desired aquatic species, whereas Six Bit Gulch experiences such extreme conditions that the original ecosystem is still largely intact. The examples illustrate that most aquatic ecosystems in California are so highly altered that attempting to restore them to an earlier condition or stable state is largely not possible. Where more or less intact systems persist, it is usually because extreme environmental conditions restrict both alien invaders and human use in small watersheds. This pattern appears to be fairly typical of streams in Mediterranean climate areas.

Nutrient Fluxes from Sediments in the San Francisco Bay Delta

Estuaries and Coasts (Springer) | January 1st, 2014

In September 2011 and March 2012, benthic nutrient fluxes were measured in the San Francisco Bay Delta, across a gradient from above the confluence of the Sacramento and

In September 2011 and March 2012, benthic nutrient fluxes were measured in the San Francisco Bay Delta, across a gradient from above the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers to Suisun Bay. Dark and illuminated core incubation techniques were used to mea- sure rates of denitrification, nutrient fluxes (phosphate, ammonium, nitrate), and oxygen fluxes. While benthic nutrient fluxes have been assessed at several sites in northern San Francisco Bay, such data across a Delta–Bay transect have not previously been determined. Average September rates of DIN (nitrate, nitrite, ammonium) flux were net positive across all sites, while March DIN flux indicated net uptake of DIN at some sites. Denitrification rates based on the N2/Ar ratio approach were between 0.6 and 1.0 mmol m−2 day−1, similar to other mesotrophic estuarine sediments. Coupled nitrifica- tion–denitrification was the dominant denitrification pathway in September, with higher overlying water nitrate concentra- tions in March resulting in denitrification driven by nitrate flux into the sediments. Estimated benthic microalgal productivity was variable and surprisingly high in Delta sediments and may represent a major source of labile carbon to this ecosystem. Variable N/P stoichiometry was observed in these sediments, with deviations from Redfield driven by processes such as denitrification, variable light/dark uptake of nutrients by microalgae, and adsorption of soluble reactive phosphorus.

Oases of the future? Springs as potential hydrologic refugia in drying climates

Ecological Society of America (Wiley) | June 1st, 2020

Natural springs in water‐limited landscapes are biodiversity hotspots and keystone ecosystems that have a disproportionate influence on surrounding landscapes despite t

Natural springs in water‐limited landscapes are biodiversity hotspots and keystone ecosystems that have a disproportionate influence on surrounding landscapes despite their usually small size. Some springs served as evolutionary refugia during previous climate drying, supporting relict species in isolated habitats. Understanding whether springs will provide hydrologic refugia from future climate change is important to biodiversity conservation but is complicated by hydrologic variability among springs, data limitations, and multiple non‐climate threats to groundwater‐dependent ecosystems. We present a conceptual framework for categorizing springs as potentially stable, relative, or transient hydrologic refugia in a drying climate. Clues about the refugial capacity of springs can be assembled from various approaches, including citizen‐science‐powered ecohydrologic monitoring, remote sensing, landowner interviews, and environmental tracer analysis. Managers can integrate multiple lines of evidence to predict which springs may become future refugia for species of concern, strengthening the long‐term effectiveness of their conservation and restoration, and informing climate adaptation for terrestrial and freshwater species.