Petaluma Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Petaluma Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency | December 8th, 2021

Due to size, this file has been divided Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7

Due to size, this file has been divided Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7

Physical and Hydrologic Assessment of the Carmel River Watershed California

California State University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB) | November 1st, 2004

The Carmel Watershed is a terrestrial jewel in the California landscape. Its forested headwaters harvest rain from the Pacific storms each winter, providing a nat

The Carmel Watershed is a terrestrial jewel in the California landscape. Its forested headwaters harvest rain from the Pacific storms each winter, providing a natural cascade of resources enjoyed by human residents and the broader ecosystem. Although the Carmel River is not currently listed as “impaired” by the State of California, there have been significant human impacts that could lead to impaired waters. These impacts are now recognized and defined in this report so that remediation and future management policies can be developed. This report is one facet of the Carmel Watershed Assessment orchestrated by the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy. We assess the physical and hydrologic components of the watershed, chiefly focusing on two major classes of problems, water quantity and excess sediment. Both of these issues are important when considering human needs and the needs of the broader ecosystem, including endangered aquatic and riparian species. The Carmel Watershed has finite annual rainfall as its only water resource. That resource is currently stretched too thin, leaving new urban, suburban, rural, and industrial development in and around the watershed at odds with pre-existing water appropriation and environmental requirements (e.g., SWRCB, 1995a; 1995b). Certain kinds of common land-uses and road designs supply excess sediment above natural background rates. Some of the major problems in the watershed are summarized below, in no particular order. Demand for water far exceeds water supply, leading to many related subordinate problems, including diminished surface water for endangered steelhead trout. Extensive urbanization exists within the regulatory 100-year floodplain and in the dam-failure inundation zone. Excess sediment is generated from a very large number of dirt roads, some of which are abandoned, some of which out of compliance with grading ordinances, but most of which are clearly within regulations. Nearly all sub-road drainage culverts are undersized, leading to downstream erosion, whether related to dirt roads, paved roads, or highways. Excess sediment is generated by a great number of bare road cuts on dirt roads, paved roads, and highways. Excess sediment is generated in the Los Chupines and Sycamore Creek drainages by soil slip, gullies, unstable stream banks, and roads. Many of those issues are related to cattle impacts. Excess sediment is generated in a great number of incised streams that have tall, exposed banks. San Clemente Dam is unsafe owing to sediment burden and proximity to active faults. Decommissioning the San Clemente Dam will likely lead to a significant shift in river morphology and flood response, owing to the restoration of historic bedload transport rates. Los Padres Dam is rapidly infilling with sediment and is also close to active faults. Watershed impairment is the result of incremental, permitted, changes that have a large cumulative impact on the watershed. Closer adherence to the Carmel Valley Master Plan (CVMP, 1996; Appendix C) and County ordinances will foster resource sustainability and aesthetic living conditions. Among the salient points in that document are the following guidelines for development (CVMP, 1996). 1. Preserve the rural character of the Carmel Valley 2. Protect all natural resources with emphasis on biological communities, agricultural lands, the Carmel River and its Riparian corridor, air quality and scenic resources. We note that the large-scale negative impacts we describe in the Carmel Watershed mainly resulted from the cumulative effects of small, insignificant, permitted landscape or hydrologic alterations (e.g., Dunne et al., 2001). With that in mind, guidelines for sustainable resource use could begin with an agreed upon ultimate level of resource use, depletion, or degradation, beyond which, no further landscape or hydrologic alterations will be permitted. Using water supply as an example, the best strategy for sustainability is to determine the total cumulative resource usage, and then stop permitting further requests for resource use when the agreed upon cumulative impact is met—the concept of water rights appropriation. This same “cumulative impact” management strategy could be applied to other cumulative watershed impacts, such as total miles of dirt road per square mile of watershed area, or total area of impervious cover per square mile of watershed area. These strategies can be applied once a cumulative impact target has been established upon sound science, and codified by stakeholder agreement. Considering that the cumulative negative impacts in the watershed are the net result of innumerable, insignificant modifications, we can predict that innumerable, small positive restorative efforts in the watershed would eventually produce large positive impacts on watershed health including water quality and quantity.

Physical water system consolidation alone cannot resolve drinking water failure in California’s San Joaquin Valley

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | July 2nd, 2026

Small community water systems in California’s San Joaquin Valley disproportionately fail to provide safe drinking water, with most serving disadvantaged communities and

Small community water systems in California’s San Joaquin Valley disproportionately fail to provide safe drinking water, with most serving disadvantaged communities and lacking the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to maintain compliance. The State Water Board designates such systems as failing when they have documented violations of drinking water standards or cannot reliably deliver safe water. Physical consolidation, which involves connecting a smaller failing system to a larger provider through new pipeline infrastructure, is the primary long-term solution promoted by state regulators. Here, we assess consolidation feasibility and capital costs across four counties (Kern, Kings, Tulare, and Fresno) via the state’s 2024 screening methodology. The methodology identifies smaller failing and at-risk systems as candidates for joining a larger receiving system with sufficient capacity. Among the 210 eligible systems, 114 (54%) matched a receiving system within three miles, with an estimated total capital need of $413.5 million. Nearly all identified pairs met state funding viability thresholds. The remaining 96 systems, including 49 classified as failing, lacked an eligible receiving partner and will require alternative solutions. Physical consolidation is necessary but insufficient for achieving safe drinking water access across the region.

Pilot Projects to Increase Colorado River System Water in Lake Powell and Lake Mead

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | January 14th, 2022

From calendar year 2015 through 2018, 64 projects were implemented in the Upper Basin resulting in an estimated 47,280 acre-feet of Colorado River System water conserved

From calendar year 2015 through 2018, 64 projects were implemented in the Upper Basin resulting in an estimated 47,280 acre-feet of Colorado River System water conserved in the Upper Basin at a cost of $8.5 million or $180.23 per acre-foot on average. From January 2015 through December 31, 2019 in the Lower Basin, 16 projects were implemented which will result in 175,347 acre-feet of Colorado River System water in Lake Mead by 2035, at a cost of approximately $29.8 million or $170.14 per acre-foot on average. The Pilot Program successfully demonstrated that voluntary, compensated water conservation projects can conserve water for Colorado River System storage to help mitigate the impacts of drought.

Piru Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Fillmore and Piru Basins Groundwater Sustainability Agency | December 16th, 2021

The Piru Basin (the Basin) is managed (along with the downslope Fillmore Basin) by the Fillmore and Piru Basins Groundwater Sustainability Agency (Agency). The Basin is p

The Piru Basin (the Basin) is managed (along with the downslope Fillmore Basin) by the Fillmore and Piru Basins Groundwater Sustainability Agency (Agency). The Basin is planned to remain sustainable over the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) implementation and sustainability period, based on the current understanding of historical, current (2019), and projected (2022 through 2072) groundwater conditions in relation to the sustainability indicators specified in SGMA. A sustainability indicator refers to any of the effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin that, when significant and unreasonable, cause undesirable results. The Agency, with consideration of feedback from active stakeholder engagement, has identified and planned for the prevention of significant and unreasonable undesirable results.

Piru Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Final (Revised)

Fillmore and Piru Basins Groundwater Sustainability Agency | July 8th, 2024

Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13

Due to size, this file has been divided. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13

Pixley Irrigation District Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Pixley Irrigation District Groundwater Sustainability Agency (PIDGSA) | January 21st, 2020

Pixley Irrigation District Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Revised)

Pixley Irrigation District Groundwater Sustainability Agency (PIDGSA) | July 27th, 2022

The Tule Subbasin is designated by DWR as a critically overdrafted basin with an estimated subbasin average overdraft of 115,300 acre-feet per year. The Agencies estimat

The Tule Subbasin is designated by DWR as a critically overdrafted basin with an estimated subbasin average overdraft of 115,300 acre-feet per year. The Agencies estimated annual average overdraft within the Tule Subbasin is 70,000 acre-feet per year. The overdraft conditions have caused issues for those reliant on groundwater pumping, which include municipal, domestic, and agriculture users. Other issues generated from the overdraft include areas of land subsidence, which predominantly occur in the northwestern portion of the Agency. A sample of the Pixley GSP is displayed below. Due to size, this full 2,421-page document must be downloaded from the Department of Water Resources.

Plan of Development Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Interagency Delta Committee (IDC) | January 20th, 1965

Plan writing as a policy tool: instrumental, conceptual, and tactical uses of water management plans in California

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences (Springer) | February 24th, 2022

Numerous environmental regulations require organizations to codify prospective activities in a written plan. However, evidence suggests that many plans are never implemen

Numerous environmental regulations require organizations to codify prospective activities in a written plan. However, evidence suggests that many plans are never implemented, raising questions about why public agencies continually require plans, whether mandating plans allows agencies to meet their policy aims, and what additional purposes plans serve. Adopting concepts from literature on research utilization, we develop a plan use typology, defining instrumental use as occurring when the requirement to write a plan directly addresses a stated policy problem, conceptual use as occurring when the requirement to write a plan indirectly addresses a policy problem by raising awareness of an issue or improving governance capacity, and tactical use as occurring when the requirement to write a plan serves a political or symbolic purpose unrelated to solving the policy problem. We then apply the typology to four California statutes that require local and regional utilities to write water management plans. We first assess the statutes to identify the goals underlying the requirement to write a plan and assess what plan uses are emphasized in guidance documents and the written plans themselves. Lastly, we interview the plan writing organizations to capture their perspectives on the value and limitations of these plans. We find that legislators turn to plans to support instrumental and conceptual goals but that the plans themselves and the way they are used by authoring agencies primarily serve conceptual and tactical uses, suggesting a disconnect between the policy goals underlying plans and their actual use.