Drinking Water and Exclusion: A Case Study from California's Central Valley

California Law Review | February 1st, 2012

The American West is notorious for its water wars, and California's complex water allocation and governance challenges serve as a bellwether for contemporary water gove

The American West is notorious for its water wars, and California's complex water allocation and governance challenges serve as a bellwether for contemporary water governance across western states, Policy makers and environmental advocates typically represent California's water woes as a regulatory problem - a failure to balance the needs of growing urban populations with ecological preservation and agricultural irrigation. These debates, however, often elide the issue of water deprivation, and they do not adequately address the concerns of an important constituency: low-income, rural communities. This Comment argues that a focus on regulation misses a fundamental feature of water inequality: the structure and design of local water districts. Utilizing a case study of California's Central Valley to illustrate how these structural barriers operate, I argue that Calfornia's complex system of local water districts fractures governance, limits electoral participation, and undermines the State's stated environmental, equity, and utilitarian water goals. I offer suggestions for alternative local water district organization in order to address the constraints of Calfornia's current water governance regime.

Drinking water nitrate and human health: An updated review

Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) | July 23rd, 2018

Drinking Water Notification Levels and Response Levels: An Overview

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | February 6th, 2020

The Division of Drinking Water’s precursor, the Drinking Water Program of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and earlier, the California Department of H

The Division of Drinking Water’s precursor, the Drinking Water Program of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and earlier, the California Department of Health Services, CDHS, established health-based advisory levels, called “notification levels” (referred to as “action levels" through 2004), as needed since the early 1980s. These have been used to provide information to public water systems and others about certain non-regulated chemicals in drinking water that lack maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).  When chemicals are found at concentrations greater than these levels, certain requirement and recommendations apply.  Generally, notification levels have been established in response to actual contamination of drinking water supplies, e.g., perchlorate, which now has an MCL. However, notification levels for a number of chemicals were established in anticipation of possible contamination, such as from a hazardous waste site containing many pesticides (in the 1980s), or from a Superfund site (in the 2000s).  Chemicals for which notification levels are established may eventually be regulated by MCLs (through a formal regulatory process), depending on the extent of contamination, the levels observed, and the risk to human health. Most, however, have not proceeded to MCLs. Once established, a notification level generally stays in place, unless it is replaced by an MCL.On occasion, though, we have revised the numeric value of an individualnotification level to reflect new risk assessment information on the particularchemical. For some of the chemicals that had advisory levels established early on, if noMCL was adopted and the need for the notification level had passed, the advisory levelwas archived. Archived advisory levels may nevertheless be updated to reflect any newrisk information that may become available, and may be used as notification levels ifneeded. To date, of the 93 chemicals for which notification levels have been established; 40 now have MCLs. Of the remaining 53 chemicals, 29 are chemicals with current notification levels. 24 are chemicals with archived advisory levels (AALs). Note that following adoption of an MCL, the notification level is no longer used. For more about AALs and notification levels, go to: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/NotificationLevels.shtml. 

Dry groundwater wells in the western United States

Environmental Research Letters (IOP) | July 28th, 2017

Declining groundwater levels are common in parts of the western US, but their impact on the ability of wells to pump groundwater is not known. Here we collate groundwater

Declining groundwater levels are common in parts of the western US, but their impact on the ability of wells to pump groundwater is not known. Here we collate groundwater well records for the western United States and present the recorded locations, depths, and purposes of more than two million groundwater wells constructed between 1950 and 2015. We then use the well records to estimate the percentage of wells that were dry during the years 2013–2015. During the two-year period, dry wells were concentrated in rural areas with high agricultural productivity, such as parts of the California Central Valley and the High Plains. Our results support anecdotal evidence that wells used for domestic purposes are more susceptible to drying than wells used for agricultural purposes throughout California’s Central Valley because the former tend to be shallower. However, this is not the case in all regions. Our findings suggest that declining groundwater levels are threatening drinking water reliability and agricultural productivity, and consequently, have key implications for both domestic and agricultural water security. Ongoing reductions to groundwater storage are drying groundwater wells in the western US, and this manifestation of water scarcity warrants innovative groundwater management transcending status quos.

Dry Me a River: Ecological Effects of Drought in the Upper San Francisco Estuary

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | May 24th, 2024

East Kaweah GSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan

East Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (EKGSA) | February 17th, 2019

Final GSP delivered to the Department of Water Resources 1/31/20 per DWR; final online draft awaiting uploading per inquiry to EKGSA 2/13/20

Final GSP delivered to the Department of Water Resources 1/31/20 per DWR; final online draft awaiting uploading per inquiry to EKGSA 2/13/20

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGA) | November 1st, 2019

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 78,000 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.

Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency Tule Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

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

EcoAtlas - Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program: Tool Integration White Paper

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | February 1st, 2016

Ecological Condition Assessments of California’s Perennial Wadeable Streams (2000 through 2006)

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | October 15th, 2007

The struggle to adequately monitor the condition of waterbodies with limited financial resources is a challenge faced by water resource agencies worldwide. For a resource

The struggle to adequately monitor the condition of waterbodies with limited financial resources is a challenge faced by water resource agencies worldwide. For a resource agency to adequately meet its obligations to monitor and assess the condition of its waterbodies it must provide information at both the site-specific scale and the scale of the entire resource. This dual obligation requires different monitoring strategies. Traditional targeted monitoring (in which site locations are selected to meet specific monitoring goals) is essential for answering many key water quality monitoring questions (e.g., what is the condition of specific sites, how do site conditions vary seasonally and annually, where are the best and worst sites, what are the primary water quality problems at specific sites, what are the effects of specific watershed activities and/or BMPs). Although this approach can generate much valuable water quality data, it is unable to provide information about the overall condition of large populations of resources (e.g., all streams, lakes or wetlands in a state) unless the monitoring entity is prepared to perform a complete census of the targeted resource. Site specific monitoring approaches are also unable to provide an objective context for interpreting the data they generate.  However, the perspective provided from this context is a necessary logical foundation for a sound monitoring program. In the US, the need for a broader context for interpreting the results of targeted monitoring data has driven the development of alternate sampling designs at both the state and federal level. To meet this need, the U.S. EPA established its Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), a long term research program designed to develop the tools and techniques needed for cost-effectively answering the fundamental status and trends questions in the Clean Water Act. The EMAP studies are based on a probabilistic survey design in which each sampling location represents a known proportion of the total resource of interest (e.g., percent of total stream length) with known statistical confidence. This design permits the inference of resource conditions for large geographic regions with a relatively small investment in sampling (Ringold et al. 1996, Olsen et al. 1999, Stevens and Olsen 2004). After completing assessments of the condition of Eastern lakes and the condition of wadeable streams in the Middle-Atlantic states, the EPA initiated a similar assessment of streams in the western states (WEMAP), which included a high density of sites in California. For the first time in 2006, the state of California used data from a probability survey to derive the condition assessments of its perennial streams in its 305(b) report to the US EPA (Ode and Rehn 2005, California State Water Resources Control Board 2006). These reports were developed to meet California’s obligation to monitor its compliance with the goal of biotic integrity stipulated under Clean Water Act §305(b). Prior to these report, the ABL has presented results of the Southern Coastal California intensification area (Rehn and Ode 2004), Northern Coastal California intensification area (Rehn et al. 2005) as demonstration projects. As the EPA’s Western EMAP sampling effort ended in 2003, the EPA strongly encouraged western states to continue the EMAP monitoring approach in their own state monitoring programs. Two monitoring programs in the California State Water Resources Control Board, the recently established Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) and the Non-Point Source Program (NPS) expressed interest in probabilistic sampling. In concert with (and with funding from) their counterparts in the EPA Region 9 Non-point Source Programs and Office of Water, NPS and SWAMP developed the California Monitoring and Assessment Program (CMAP) to provide an additional four years of statewide probabilistic sampling to support continued ecological condition assessments. The study designs used for these condition assessments were developed by the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. Since the state and federal NPS programs brought a strong interest in the relationship between non-point source pollution sources and aquatic life use, the sampling design was adapted to include an explicit stratification by landuse/ landcover.