Guidance Document for Groundwater Sustainability Plan Stakeholder Communicaton and Engagement, June 2017 (Draft)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 1st, 2017

The objectve of this guidance document is to provide Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) information to aid with stakeholder communication and engage

The objectve of this guidance document is to provide Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) information to aid with stakeholder communication and engagement for Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) preparation and to provide examples and existing resources related to public engagement and effective communication for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) implementation. Limitation and use of this guidance information This guidance document is not intended to prescribe specifc outreach and communications methods for GSAs or local agencies to follow, but to provide resources and various examples for consideration. This guidance document also summarizes the public notfcation requirements that GSAs must adhere to in order to comply with SGMA and the GSP regulations. Other than what is required by statute or regulation, GSAs have discretion on how they communicate and engage with the beneficial uses and users of groundwater within a basin.

Guidance Document for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Engagement with Tribal Governments June 2017 (Draft)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 1st, 2017

The objective of this guidance document is to convey information, as provided by California’s Tribal governments, by which local agencies can engage Tribal gove

The objective of this guidance document is to convey information, as provided by California’s Tribal governments, by which local agencies can engage Tribal governments as part of an effort to identify interested persons, and consider the interests of beneficial users of groundwater; including those users on Tribal lands not subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). This guidance document can also be used to help local agencies engage with a Tribal government in the planning, financing, and management of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), or help with the development and implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) pursuant to SGMA.

Guide to Compliance with California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: How to avoid the “undesirable result” of “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of surface waters"

Stanford University | September 4th, 2018

In enacting the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) the California Legislature, for the first time ever, expressly linked the two historically distinct legal r

In enacting the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) the California Legislature, for the first time ever, expressly linked the two historically distinct legal regimes governing water in the state that previously had been entirely separate: one governing surface water use and the other groundwater use. SGMA requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs or Plans) to consider and address the groundwater-surface water interaction, and specifically the impacts of groundwater pumping on surface water beneficial uses. SGMA defines sustainable groundwater management as the avoidance of six “undesirable results” identified in the law. The purpose of this guide is to help GSAs and other stakeholders understand and comply with the requirement of SGMA that groundwater withdrawals must not cause “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water,” known as “undesirable result no. 6.” This guide is based on the principle that existing legal frameworks (laws, regulations, court decisions, etc.) provide the clearest and most pertinent guidance on what constitutes undesirable result no. 6. This guide addresses only the explicit legal aspects of this statutory mandate. It does not address technical and scientific aspects of SGMA compliance and offers no advice on the steps GSAs must take to get an adequate technical understanding of the groundwater-surface water connections under their purview. GSAs may look to other sources for guidance on that front. In addition, “Navigating Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act,” authored by experts at the University of California Berkeley provides a helpful overview of the steps involved in implementing SGMA provisions relating to groundwater-surface water interactions.  

Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) | July 1st, 1984

Guideline levels for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water: the role of scientific uncertainty, risk assessment decisions, and social factors

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology (Springer) | January 8th, 2019

Communities across the U.S. are discovering drinking water contaminated by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and determining appropriate actions. Ther

Communities across the U.S. are discovering drinking water contaminated by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and determining appropriate actions. There are currently no federal PFAS drinking water standards despite widespread drinking water contamination, ubiquitous population-level exposure, and toxicological and epidemiological evidence of adverse health effects. Absent federal PFAS standards, multiple U.S. states have developed their own healthbased water guideline levels to guide decisions about contaminated site cleanup and drinking water surveillance and treatment. We examined perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) water guideline levels developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies to protect people drinking the water, and summarized how and why these levels differ. We referenced documents and tables released in June 2018 by the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) to identify states that have drinking water and groundwater guideline levels for PFOA and/or PFOS that differ from EPA’s health advisories (HAs). We also gathered assessment documents from state websites and contacted state environmental and health agencies to identify and confirm current guidelines. Seven states have developed their own water guideline levels for PFOA and/or PFOS ranging from 13 to 1000 ng/L, compared to EPA’s HA of 70 ng/L for both compounds individually or combined. We find that the development of PFAS guideline levels via exposure and hazard assessment decisions is influenced by multiple scientific, technical, and social factors, including managing scientific uncertainty, technical decisions and capacity, and social, political, and economic influences from involved stakeholders. Assessments by multiple states and academic scientists suggest that EPA’s HA is not sufficiently protective. The ability of states to develop their own guideline levels and standards provides diverse risk assessment approaches as models for other state and federal regulators, while a sufficiently protective, scientifically sound, and enforceable federal standard would provide more consistent protection.

Harnessing the Power of Geophysical Imaging to Recharge California's Groundwater

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | April 17th, 2025

Motivated by the availability of 20,000 line-km of airborne electromagnetic (AEM) data covering the Central Valley of California, we developed a workflow that uses resist

Motivated by the availability of 20,000 line-km of airborne electromagnetic (AEM) data covering the Central Valley of California, we developed a workflow that uses resistivity profiles from electromagnetic (EM) data to assess the suitability of areas for groundwater recharge. We defined a suitable area as one where “fastpaths” of coarse-grained material could efficiently move water from the ground surface to the water table. We defined recharge metrics and generated the corresponding maps by integrating resistivity profiles from AEM data, sediment type (from driller's logs), water level measurements, and water quality measurements. The workflow is publicly available through a web-based application, fastpath. We produced maps displaying recharge metrics on a 400 m × 400 m grid covering the Central Valley, with 80% of the cells sufficiently close to an AEM resistivity profile (within ∼3 km) to be assessed for recharge. Various decisions are made in the workflow that result in a range of values for determined metrics at any given location. The maps summarizing all metrics show that between 19% (2,000,000 acres) and 56% (7,000,000 acres) of the total area in the valley is land suitable for recharge. The landcover with the largest total area of land classified as suitable is cultivated crops. We estimated the total space available for recharge water to be ∼170 km3 which is two orders of magnitude greater than an estimate of the total volume of water likely to be available for recharge.

Helium isotope studies in the Mojave Desert, California: implications for groundwater chronology and regional seismicity

Chemical Geology (Elsevier) | November 7th, 2003

Hemet San Jacinto Stipulated Judgment

Superior Court of California, County of Riverside | April 18th, 2013

Background from "An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins," Langridge et al, 2016 (UC Davis) Groundwater problems in the San Jacinto Basin were f

Background from "An Evaluation of California’s Adjudicated Groundwater Basins," Langridge et al, 2016 (UC Davis) Groundwater problems in the San Jacinto Basin were first addressed by the court in a 1954 judgment that allocated pumping rights for the Fruitvale Mutual Water Company in the upper San Jacinto Basin. Declining groundwater levels persisted into the 1970s, and local water purveyors attempted to develop a groundwater management plan to address the declines. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), which had acquired the Fruitvale Company in 1972, worked with the water purveyors in the 1990s to implement an AB 3030 groundwater management plan for the West San Jacinto Groundwater Management Area. In 2001, a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and local agencies required a water management plan for the Hemet/San Jacinto Groundwater Management Area, the eastern portion of the San Jacinto Basin, and a plan was released in 2007. At the same time, the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, negotiating with the local agencies to specify their groundwater rights from the Hemet/San Jacinto Groundwater Management Area, also pushed for a management plan. These negotiations culminated in the 2008 Soboba Settlement Agreement Act that established their water rights. A 2013 stipulated judgment allocated pumping rights for public water agencies, provided for water rights outlined in the Soboba Settlement Agreement, incorporated the Water Management Plan, and mandated a Watermaster."

Henry Miller Water District Revised Groundwater Sustainability Plan, Kern County Subbasin

Henry Miller Water District | July 21st, 2022

This Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Henry Miller Water District (HMWD) Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) has been prepared pursuant to Water Code §1

This Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Henry Miller Water District (HMWD) Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) has been prepared pursuant to Water Code §10727. HMWD is located in the Kern County Subbasin (Basin 5-22.14) as defined by the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Bulletin 118. The Kern Subbasin is considered to be in a condition of critical overdraft and has been designated as a high priority basin. This GSP is one of the five GSPs being prepared in the Subbasin, which collectively has and will coordinate to avoid, to the best of their abilities, any and all Undesirable Results as a result of unsustainable groundwater management practices. HMWD formed its own GSA on March 15, 2017; it is the only Water District located within the GSA. HMWD GSA is one of five GSAs that are preparing a GSP within the Subbasin. This GSP, in coordination with the four other GSPs within the Subbasin, will provide a path to sustainability and the preservation of groundwater resources for all beneficial users of groundwater. Because the Subbasin has multiple GSPs, the GSPs are prepared under a coordination agreement. This Coordination Agreement exemplifies the ways that the various GSPs were able to work together to achieve a common goal: groundwater sustainability for the Subbasin. For example, the entire Subbasin has utilized Todd Groundwater’s services to analyze historic, current, and future groundwater conditions with a C2VSIM model. This Plan includes a description of the historic groundwater conditions in the Subbasin, a Subbasin water budget, sustainable management criteria for future monitoring, and projects and/or management actions that may be implemented to ensure groundwater sustainability is achieved by 2040 and maintained through 2070. Due to size, the file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Historical Seawater Intrusion Map Pressure 180-Foot Aquifer - 500 mg/L or Greater Chloride Areas

Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) | April 11th, 2018