Governor's Commission to Review California Water Rights Law Summary Final Report

State of California | December 1st, 1978

Governor's Commission to Review California Water Rights Law: Final Report

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | December 22nd, 1978

The Final Report of the Governor's Commission to Review Water Rights Law, dated 12/22/1978.  The report contains the Commission's analysis of existing California water r

The Final Report of the Governor's Commission to Review Water Rights Law, dated 12/22/1978.  The report contains the Commission's analysis of existing California water rights law and recommendations for modifications. The Commission recommended 'modernization' in four areas:  water rights, efficiency in water use, instream uses of water, and groundwater.

Grand theft water and the calculus of compliance

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | August 24th, 2020

Water crises constitute a challenge for humanity. Uncertain supply and growing demand are driving higher water theft, particularly by agricultural users who account for a

Water crises constitute a challenge for humanity. Uncertain supply and growing demand are driving higher water theft, particularly by agricultural users who account for approximately 70% of global use. However, research into water theft is underexplored in all disciplines. This paper provides a conceptual framework and modelling approach designed to improve understanding of both individual and institutional barriers to water theft. The framework and model explore how effective detection, prosecution, conviction and penalties can be assessed. Three case studies test the validity of our framework. Our findings suggest that while individuals and companies may be responsible for the act of theft, the phenomenon reflects a systematic failure of arrangements (political, legal, institutional, and so on). In addition, when regulators fail to understand the value of water, inadequate prescribed penalties increase the risk of theft. We invite others to test our framework, apply our model and engage in a wider conversation about water theft.

Groundwater Exchange Pools and Urban Water Supply Sustainability: Modeling Directed and Undirected Networks

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) | August 1st, 2018

Groundwater basins are important sources of water supply and storage for many cities. Groundwater exchange pools offer additional opportunities for utilizing these

Groundwater basins are important sources of water supply and storage for many cities. Groundwater exchange pools offer additional opportunities for utilizing these common pool resources, but their potential role in urban water management is not clear, and modeling such exchanges can be challenging. This paper presents an analysis of the potential for groundwater basin exchange pools to contribute to urban water supply sustainability. Building on an existing model of urban water management in Los Angeles, the analysis assesses the potential for groundwater exchange pools to reduce scarcity and demonstrates a method for modeling two-way (undirected) flows within a directed-network model using linear programming. Results indicate that exchange pools can help alleviate shortages from operational changes (reduced imported water) in Los Angeles, but providing more parties with access to storage improves their effectiveness. Exchange pools could potentially provide 6–12% of total supplies and reduce shortages as much as 86%. Considerations for organizing exchange pools are discussed to explore policy implications for managing common pool resources. The analytical method for embedding undirected network flows within a larger directed-network model has wide applicability for water resource systems analysis applications, including modeling water markets and interbasin transfers. * U.C. Davis hosts a discussion of the content by the authors at California Water Blog. 

Groundwater Pumping Allocations under California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: Considerations for Groundwater Sustainability Agencies

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) | July 1st, 2018

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) became law on January 1, 2015, forever changing the manner in which groundwater will be managed in California. It requir

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) became law on January 1, 2015, forever changing the manner in which groundwater will be managed in California. It requires local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to be formed and Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) to be prepared in order to achieve sustainable groundwater management within 20 years of adopting a GSP. SGMA applies to 127 medium and high priority groundwater subbasins around the state. Over 100 of the medium and high priority groundwater subbasins are in conditions of chronic overdraft (DWR, 2018), meaning average annual groundwater extractions exceed average annual water replenishment to many of the subbasins. These conditions have resulted in a variety of undesirable impacts to the subbasin, including, but not limited to, increasing depth to groundwater, reductions of groundwater storage, seawater intrusion, degraded water quality, and land subsidence. In many subbasins, groundwater overdraft conditions will require GSAs to impose reductions in pumping in order to achieve sustainable conditions in the subbasin. To do this, GSAs will need set a limit or “cap” on the overall amount of groundwater that is removed from the subbasin, assigning portions of this capped amount to groundwater pumpers in the form of a pumping allocation. Making pumping allocation decisions will be a difficult task for GSAs, as it will require restricting access to groundwater resources upon which the agricultural community, cities and towns, and others depend. SGMA expressly does not create or adjust groundwater rights and the basic law of groundwater rights remains largely unchanged. Simply put, this means that while GSAs are tasked with managing groundwater with the goal of bringing groundwater conditions into balance and stopping further depletions and other undesirable impacts, they do not have the authority to change or modify groundwater rights. Thus, GSAs should be mindful of the basic law of groundwater as articulated by the common law and a series of adjudicatory court decisions over the last 100 plus years. The subject of this paper is how to address this dilemma, with the reasoning that if GSAs devise groundwater allocation schemes in a manner consistent with the fundamental principles of groundwater law, the schemes are likely to be more durable, and GSAs are more likely to achieve sustainable groundwater management in a legally defensible manner. To do this, we first provide background on the nature of groundwater rights and how the hierarchy of groundwater rights may affect the legal defensibility of pumping allocations imposed by GSAs upon pumpers. We then discuss the role of groundwater allocations and methods for allocating groundwater pumping rights, and then offer a suggested allocation approach with criteria for consideration when using this approach. To help readers work through the allocation process, the paper includes a hypothetical decision tree graphic. We also discuss the importance of measurement, tracking, and enforcement, as well as additional considerations under SGMA before offering some concluding remarks.

Groundwater Sustainability Plan Fillmore Basin (Final - Revised)

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

In January 2024, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) informed the Fillmore and Piru Basins Groundwater Sustainability Agency (FPBGSA or Agency) that the Gr

In January 2024, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) informed the Fillmore and Piru Basins Groundwater Sustainability Agency (FPBGSA or Agency) that the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) submitted to DWR in January 2022 for the Fillmore Basin was deemed incomplete and provided the Agency with a 180-day period to address the deficiencies. In consultation with DWR, the Agency Board of Directors, and stakeholders, the Fillmore Basin GSP has been revised to address the deficiencies. This revised version of the GSP is not a complete update of the GSP; rather, it only revises those sections of the GSP (and associated appendices) to address the DWR-identified deficiencies. A more robust revisit of the GSP will be part of the 5-year update due in 2027. 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

Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin

Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Committee | July 31st, 2024

1. Table of Contents 2. Executive Summary 3. Introduction 4. Plan Area 5. Basin Setting 6. Groundwater Conditions 7. Water Budget 8. Sustainability Criteria 9

1. Table of Contents 2. Executive Summary 3. Introduction 4. Plan Area 5. Basin Setting 6. Groundwater Conditions 7. Water Budget 8. Sustainability Criteria 9. Monitoring 10. Projects and Management 11. Plan Implementation 12. References 13. Appendices For a full history of basin GSPs, go to the Department of Water Resources Sustainable Groundwater Management Act portal.

Groundwater: The Water-Budget Myth

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) | June 1st, 1982

Water-resource scientists are concerned that some basic principles are being overlooked by water managers. Rather than discuss the scope of groundwater hydrolog

Water-resource scientists are concerned that some basic principles are being overlooked by water managers. Rather than discuss the scope of groundwater hydrology, we have chosen to focus on a common misconception to illustrate the point. Perhaps the most common misconception in groundwater hydrology is that a water budget of an area determines the magnitude of possible groundwater development. Several well-known hydrologists have addressed this misconception and attempted to dispel it. Somehow, though, it persists and continues to color decisions by the water-management community. The laws governing the development of groundwater in Nevada as well as several other states are based on the idea that pumping within a groundwater basin shall not exceed the recharge. It is the intent of this paper to re-examine the issue.

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.  

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."