Monitoring Program for the Santa Maria Valley Management Area

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | April 11th, 2013

The terms and conditions of a Stipulation in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin Litigation passed down by the Superior Court of the State of California, County of

The terms and conditions of a Stipulation in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin Litigation passed down by the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, on June 30, 2005, are intended to “impose a physical solution establishing a legal and practical means for ensuring the Basin’s long-term sustainability.” Under the Stipulation, the groundwater, imported and developed water, and storage space of the Basin are to be managed in three management areas, including one for the Santa Maria Valley (SMVMA) (Figure 1). The management area is approximately 175 square miles in size encompassing the Santa Maria and Sisquoc Valleys, extending north to the Nipomo Mesa, east to the cliffs above the Santa Maria River and terraces along the Sisquoc River, south to the Casmalia and Solomon Hills, and west to the coast. According to the Stipulation, a monitoring program is to be established for each of the three management areas to collect and analyze data regarding water supply and demand such that the following objectives are met: 1) assessment of groundwater conditions, both levels and quality; 2) determination of land use, water requirements, and water supply; and 3) accounting of amounts and methods of disposition of water utilized. This monitoring program has been prepared to meet these objectives in the SMVMA. Also in accordance with the Stipulation, it is expected that the monitoring results will be utilized for preparation of annual reports on the SMVMA, including an assessment of whether conditions of severe water shortage are present. The monitoring program for the SMVMA, with minor revisions from October 2008, is described by individual element in the following section. Among other components, the monitoring program includes networks of historically monitored wells, stream gauges, and climatic stations. These monitoring points were selected based on publicly available information about their locations, characteristics, and historical data records with the intent of continuing those records as much as possible. It is recognized that, as implementation of the program proceeds, the inclusion of some network wells may be determined to be impractical or impossible due to problems of access or abandonment. Further, the reestablishment of inactive (or installation of new) wells, stream gauges and climatic stations will depend on interagency coordination, permitting procedures, and budgetary constraints. Thus, it is anticipated that the overall monitoring program will be incrementally implemented as practicalities like those mentioned above dictate. Similarly, it is expected that, with time, the program will undergo modification in response to various factors (e.g. replacing network wells abandoned in the future, revising well classifications by aquifer depth zone), while maintaining the overall goal of facilitating interpretation and reporting on water requirements, water supplies, and the state of groundwater conditions in the SMVMA.

Mono Lake Basin Water Right Decision 1631

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | September 28th, 1994

Decision and Order Amending Water Right Licenses to Establish Fishery Protection Flows in Streams Tributary to Mono Lake and to Protect Public Trust Resources at Mono Lak

Decision and Order Amending Water Right Licenses to Establish Fishery Protection Flows in Streams Tributary to Mono Lake and to Protect Public Trust Resources at Mono Lake and in the Mono Lake Basin (Water Right Licenses 10191 and 10192, Applications 8042 and 8043, City of Los Angeles, Licensee)  

Mono Lake Committee request for an emergency action to protect Mono Lake and its public trust resources

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | December 16th, 2022

Mono Lake Kutzadika’a Tribe support for Emergency Action at Mono Lake Due to Low Lake Level

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | December 22nd, 2022

Mono Lake: background, Decision 1631, current conditions, ongoing developments

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | January 1st, 2023

Moving Forward Effort: Phase 1 Report

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | May 1st, 2015

In 2012, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), in partnership with the seven Colorado River Basin States (Basin States) and in collaboration with a wide spectrum of

In 2012, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), in partnership with the seven Colorado River Basin States (Basin States) and in collaboration with a wide spectrum of Colorado River Basin (Basin) stakeholders, published the most comprehensive study of future Basin supply and demand ever undertaken. The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (Basin Study) confirmed that, in the absence of timely action, there are likely to be significant shortfalls between projected water supplies and demands in coming decades. The Basin Study also confirmed that a wide range of solutions are needed to mitigate and adapt to such shortfalls, which are likely to affect each sector (agricultural, municipal, energy, and environmental, for example) dependent on the Colorado River and its tributaries. In response to the findings of the Basin Study, in May 2013, Reclamation and the Basin States, in collaboration with the Ten Tribes Partnership and conservation organizations, initiated the Moving Forward effort to build on future considerations and next steps identified in the Basin Study. The Moving Forward effort builds upon and enhances the broad, inclusive stakeholder process demonstrated in the Basin Study with an ultimate goal of identifying actionable steps to address projected water supply and demand imbalances that have broad-based support and provide a wide-range of benefits. The Moving Forward effort is being conducted in a phased approach. Phase 1, which was funded by Reclamation and the Basin States, began with the formation of a Coordination Team and three multi-stakeholder workgroups that focus on water conservation, reuse, and environmental and recreational flows. The Phase 1 Report documents the activities and outcomes of the workgroups during this phase. Commenting on the information provided in the Phase 1 Report is encouraged. Written comments should be submitted within 90 days following the release of this report. The comments will be summarized and posted to the Moving Forward website and will be considered in future Moving Forward phases. Instructions for submitting comments are provided at [this link].

Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the Orange County Water District Including a Feasibility Analysis of the Potential Consolidation of Orange County Water District and Municipal Water District of Orange County

Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County | November 15th, 2024

National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County

Supreme Court of California | February 17th, 1983

Navigability and its Consequences: State Title, Mineral Rights, and the Public Trust Doctrine

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) | June 12th, 2014

“Navigability” and “navigable waters” are two of the most complex terms of art in American law because their meanings vary from context to context. A “navigable

“Navigability” and “navigable waters” are two of the most complex terms of art in American law because their meanings vary from context to context. A “navigable water” for purposes of the federal courts’ admiralty jurisdiction is not precisely the same thing as a “navigable water” for Commerce Clause purposes, and the Commerce Clause definition can be further refined in statute like the federal Clean Water Act. Other important federal law definitions of navigability govern state title to banks and beds of waterways and the scope of the federal navigation servitude. As this article will discuss, these tests overlap considerably, and attempts to distinguish them can cause confusion. State law definitions of “navigability” for state regulatory purposes complicate the multiple valences of “navigable water” even further. This article provides an overview of some of the more important definitions of “navigability” and “navigable waters.” In general, labeling a waterway as “navigable” signals that either the federal government or the public acquires some right to the waterway in question. However, if the waterway also meets the “navigable water” test for state title, complicated legal relationships among the federal government, the relevant state, the general public, and private riparian landowners almost inevitably follow.

Navigating Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment (CLEE) | March 28th, 2018

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), passed in 2014, recognizes and addresses connections between surface water and groundwater. The st

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), passed in 2014, recognizes and addresses connections between surface water and groundwater. The statute is California’s first statewide law to explicitly reflect the fact that surface water and groundwater are frequently interconnected and that groundwater management can impact groundwater-dependent ecosystems, surface water flows, and the beneficial uses of those flows. As such, SGMA partially remedies the historically problematic practice of treating groundwater and surface water as legally distinct resources. SGMA requires groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to manage groundwater to avoid six undesirable results, including significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of surface water. While this aspect of SGMA is clearly important, significant uncertainties exist regarding how GSAs will actually define and achieve this goal. Addressing SGMA’s requirements for groundwater-surface water interactions will be difficult. Defining the issues at stake in any given basin, let alone successfully balancing the range of uncertainties and potentially conficting interests, will pose challenges for many GSAs. No clear, pre-defned formula exists to guide GSAs in determining what significant and unreasonable depletions of interconnected surface water will be, or whether planned actions will sufficiently avoid them. Yet they are required to do so. Many GSAs will face pressure to aggressively address impacts on surface water in their basin. Many will face equal or greater pressure not to draw the line. Nevertheless, it will fall to the GSAs to make a determination, and to defend it in their groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs). Therefore, GSAs will likely take on some level of risk—of successful political opposition to their GSP, of successful legal challenges to their GSP, of their GSP performing ineffectively, or of all of these outcomes. Given the aggressive timeline inherent to SGMA, addressing this risk early will be crucial for preserving management options. Challenges and risk are not the whole story, however. The process of addressing groundwater-surface water interactions also ofders GSAs an opportunity to help communities and other stakeholders resolve, or avoid, difficult conflicts, and to do so in lasting ways. While California law has only recently begun to seriously address conflicts between surface and groundwater uses, those conflicts have been occurring for decades, and in some places for over a century. SGMA, in other words, did not create conflict between groundwater pumping and beneficial uses of surface water; instead it created an opportunity—as well as an obligation—to respond to those challenges. Embracing that opportunity will not be easy, but GSAs that take SGMA as an opportunity to resolve longstanding issues can do lasting good. The research presented here examines some of the legal and institutional questions that will inevitably arise as GSAs seek to address groundwater-surface water interactions under SGMA. The core goal of this report is to help parties identify and address these questions, and ultimately to let GSAs and stakeholders manage groundwater-surface water interactions proactively and effectively.