Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Revised)

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

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

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

Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Tule Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency (ETGSA) | January 17th, 2020

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

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

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

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

Eastside Aquifer Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency | January 13th, 2022

The 2014 California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires that medium- and high-priority groundwater basins and subbasins develop Groundwater Sustainabil

The 2014 California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires that medium- and high-priority groundwater basins and subbasins develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that outline how groundwater sustainably will be achieved in 20 years, and then maintained for an additional 30 years. This GSP fulfills that requirement for the Salinas Valley—Eastside Aquifer Subbasin (Subbasin), which is designated by the DWR as a medium priority groundwater subbasin. Plan approved by DWR 4/27/23.

Economic and Environmental Implications of California Crop and Livestock, Adaptation to Climate Change

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) | August 27th, 2018

Economic and Water Supply Effects of Ending Groundwater Overdraft in California's Central Valley

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | March 1st, 2016

Surface water and groundwater management are often tightly linked, even when linkage is not intended or expected. This link is especially common in semi-arid regions, suc

Surface water and groundwater management are often tightly linked, even when linkage is not intended or expected. This link is especially common in semi-arid regions, such as California. This paper summarizes a modeling study on the effects of ending long-term overdraft in California’s Central Valley, the state’s largest aquifer system. The study focuses on economic and operational aspects, such as surface water pumping and diversions, groundwater recharge, water scarcity, and the associated operating and water scarcity costs. This analysis uses CALVIN, a hydro-economic optimization model for California’s water resource system that suggests operational changes to minimize net system costs for a given set of conditions, such as ending long-term overdraft. Based on model results, ending overdraft might induce some major statewide operational changes, including large increases to Delta exports, more intensive conjunctive-use operations with increasing artificial and in-lieu recharge, and greater water scarcity for Central Valley agriculture. The statewide costs of ending roughly 1.2 maf yr of groundwater overdraft are at least $50 million per year from additional direct water shortage and additional operating costs. At its worst, the costs of ending Central Valley overdraft could be much higher, perhaps comparable to the recent economic effects of drought. Driven by recent state legislation to improve groundwater sustainability, ending groundwater overdraft has important implications statewide for water use and management, particularly in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Ending Central Valley overdraft will amplify economic pressure to increase Delta water exports rather than reduce them, tying together two of California’s largest water management problems.

Economic and water supply effects of ending groundwater overdraft in California’s Central Valley

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | March 1st, 2016

Surface water and groundwater management are often tightly linked, even when linkage is not intended or expected. This link is especially common in semi-arid regions,

Surface water and groundwater management are often tightly linked, even when linkage is not intended or expected. This link is especially common in semi-arid regions, such as California. This paper summarizes a modeling study on the effects of ending long-term overdraft in California’s Central Valley, the state’s largest aquifer system. The study focuses on economic and operational aspects, such as surface water pumping and diversions, groundwater recharge, water scarcity, and the associated operating and water scarcity costs. This analysis uses CALVIN, a hydro-economic optimization model for California’s water resource system that suggests operational changes to minimize net system costs for a given set of conditions, such as ending long-term overdraft. Based on model results, ending overdraft might induce some major statewide operational changes, including large increases to Delta exports, more intensive conjunctive-use operations with increasing artificial and in-lieu recharge, and greater water scarcity for Central Valley agriculture. The statewide costs of ending roughly 1.2 maf yr-1  of groundwater overdraft are at least $50 million per year from additional direct water shortage and additional operating costs. At its worst, the costs of ending Central Valley overdraft could be much higher, perhaps comparable to the recent economic effects of drought. Driven by recent state legislation to improve groundwater sustainability, ending groundwater overdraft has important implications statewide for water use and management, particularly in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Ending Central Valley overdraft will amplify economic pressure to increase Delta water exports rather than reduce them, tying together two of California’s largest water management problems.

Economic Impacts of SGMA on San Joaquin Valley Dairies and Beef Cattle

Dairy Cares (California Cattle Council) | January 30th, 2023

Economic tradeoff between domestic well impact and reduced agricultural production with groundwater drought management: Tulare County, California (USA), case study

Hydrogeology Journal (Springer) | November 8th, 2021

Formal policy analysis can aid resource management where groundwater is used intensively. Approaches for developing equitable and effective pumping allocations for drough

Formal policy analysis can aid resource management where groundwater is used intensively. Approaches for developing equitable and effective pumping allocations for drought are evaluated in the context of the 2012–2016 drought in Tulare County, California, USA. Potential economic impacts of policy alternatives on two user groups with conflicting interests are considered. Tradeoffs between losses of agricultural profit and response costs for domestic wells that run dry are estimated for various maximum groundwater depth policies. A welfare maximizing approach for identifying policies that limit depth to groundwater is evaluated and found to be ineffective because agricultural opportunity costs are much larger than domestic well costs. Adding a fee for additional drought groundwater pumping is proposed as a more impactful and balanced management policy approach. For the case study presented, a fee range of $300 to $600/acre-foot ($300–$600/1,233 m3) yielded an effective groundwater management policy for reducing domestic well impacts from drought and balancing agricultural impacts of drought with the need to replenish additional drought pumping in wetter years. Recent management policies enacted in the study area agree with this finding. These results may provide a useful perspective for analytically examining and developing groundwater management policies near the study area and elsewhere.

Eel River Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Humboldt County Groundwater Sustainability Agency | January 29th, 2022

In 2015, Humboldt County received a planning grant from DWR for technical studies and planning which led to the submission in December 2016 of a Groundwater Sustainabili

In 2015, Humboldt County received a planning grant from DWR for technical studies and planning which led to the submission in December 2016 of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Alternative, a streamlined version of a GSP. The GSP Alternative was disapproved by DWR in 2019 primarily because objective management criteria had not been established for 10 years; a quantitative estimate of sustainable yield was not developed; and the GSP Alternative did not quantify the impacts of groundwater use on surface water systems and determine at what point they are significant and unreasonable. As a result of the GSP Alternative being disapproved, formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) was required and development of a full GSP was required by January 31, 2022. This is that document. Due to file size, this document has been divided into sections. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 Click here for the Eel River Valley GSP page at the California Department of Water Resources